ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Techniques for Chronic Central and Peripheral Neuropathic 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neuromodulation is increasingly used for chronic neuropathic pain, but the comparative efficacy of invasive and non-invasive techniques remains unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different neuromodulation interventions for chronic central and peripheral neuropathic pain. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registries from inception to March 6, 2026. Eligible interventions included repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S). The primary outcome was pain intensity at the primary endpoint reported in each study. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and treatment ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Risk of bias and confidence in the evidence were evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), respectively. Results: A total of 68 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Most active neuromodulation interventions showed greater pain reduction than control conditions. PNS was significantly superior to sham stimulation, no treatment, and conventional medical management, while SCS was significantly superior to no treatment and conventional medical management. rTMS, TENS, and tDCS also significantly reduced pain compared with sham stimulation. PNS, SCS, and rTMS occupied relatively high ranking positions; however, these rankings were derived from a heterogeneous and uneven evidence network with very low confidence and should not be interpreted as evidence of treatment superiority. Conclusion: Several neuromodulation interventions were associated with greater pain reduction than their available control conditions. However, most comparisons between active interventions were not statistically significant, the evidence network was uneven, and confidence in the evidence was very low. Treatment rankings should therefore be considered exploratory and should not be interpreted as establishing the superiority of any individual intervention.
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.