SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
The effectiveness of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in migraine management: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has emerged as a potential non-pharmacological intervention for migraine. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated its efficacy for both acute and preventive migraine treatment. Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261347799). PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang were searched from inception to February 19, 2026, to identify RCTs of nVNS for migraine. The primary outcomes were monthly headache days, monthly acute medication use, and headache pain intensity. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fixed- or random-effects models were applied according to outcome type and statistical heterogeneity, and random-effects sensitivity analyses were conducted for continuous primary outcomes to account for expected clinical heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Seven RCTs involving 917 patients with migraine were included. Meta-analysis showed that nVNS significantly reduced monthly headache days (MD = -1.52, 95% CI - 1.86 to -1.18, Conclusion: nVNS may reduce monthly headache days, acute medication use, and headache pain intensity, while also improving acute pain-free and pain-relief responses within 2 h in patients with migraine. It may represent a promising non-pharmacological option for migraine treatment and prevention, although further high-quality studies are needed to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261347799, identifier: CRD420261347799.
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.