ReviewBrain sciences2026
Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Core Symptoms of Chronic Primary Pain: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with rehabilitation training for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesChronic primary pain (CPP) is a new diagnostic category including chronic pain conditions lacking clinical signs or a clear etiopathogenetic origin. These disorders may share a common neural mechanism known as central sensitization, where nociceptive neurons become hyper-responsive to standard or subthreshold pain stimuli, resulting in pain hyper-sensitivity. In this context, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) appears to be a promising tool for improving CPP symptoms by targeting maladaptive brain activity and connectivity. To date, the effects of NIBS on CPP symptoms remain unexplored. To fill this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis, investigating the effect of NIBS in improving the three core symptoms of CPP, namely pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we screened four databases up to February 2025 for English-language, peer-reviewed randomized clinical trials that included CPP patients treated with NIBS and reported pre/post or follow-up scores on validated measures of at least one core symptom. Quality of life was examined as an additional outcome.
resultsFifty-four studies were included, with 1371 participants receiving real stimulation and 1103 sham. Findings highlighted that real stimulation improved CPP symptoms immediately after treatment and at one-month follow-up. Meta-regressions showed that longer CPP duration reduced short-term effects on emotional distress and diminished all outcomes at one-month follow-up.
conclusionsFurther research is needed to establish standardized NIBS protocols for CPP management, to investigate the effectiveness at longer follow-up periods, and to test whether combining NIBS with other interventions enhances treatment effectiveness and durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.