ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Efficacy of Physical Agent Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) involves peripheral nociception, central sensitization, and persistent disability. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may reduce pain by modulating cortical excitability and central pain processing, while electroacupuncture (EA) combines acupuncture with electrical stimulation to influence nociceptive pathways and improve function. However, the relative efficacy of these and other physical agent therapies remains clinically uncertain in CLBP management. Objective: To systematically compare the efficacy of different PATs in pain relief and physical function improvement for CLBP patients via network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through November 2025 for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes were VAS/NRS pain scores and ODI disability. A bayesian random-effects NMA was used to estimate mean differences (MDs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and SUCRA rankings. Results: Fifty RCTs involving 2,811 participants evaluated nine interventions: TMS, PMS, ESWT, EA, tDCS, PEMF, TENS, IFC, and PMS+TMS. TMS ranked highest for pain relief (SUCRA=0.98), followed by PMS (0.82) and ESWT (0.71), although four TMS studies had a high risk of performance bias. EA ranked highest for ODI improvement (0.94), followed by ESWT (0.72) and PMS (0.68). PMS+TMS showed no additional benefit over monotherapy. Conclusion: TMS may provide superior pain relief among physical agent therapies for CLBP, yet these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to potential bias in the available evidence. EA shows the greatest benefit for functional recovery, and moderate-to-large analgesic effects are also observed with ESWT and PMS. When choosing physical agent therapies, clinicians ought to weigh these comparative rankings against the methodological limitations of the analysis.
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.