The Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Potential Influencers of Clinical Effect.
Fibromyalgia
meta-analysis
meta-regression
systematic review
transcranial direct current stimulation
Journal
Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
ISSN: 1525-1403
Titre abrégé: Neuromodulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9804159
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
21
06
2022
revised:
14
09
2022
accepted:
11
10
2022
pmc-release:
01
06
2024
medline:
9
6
2023
pubmed:
27
11
2022
entrez:
26
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is tentative evidence to support the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in fibromyalgia (FM), with large variability in the effect size (ES) encountered in different clinical trials. Understanding the source of the variability and exploring how it relates to the clinical results could characterize effective neuromodulation protocols and ultimately guide care in FM pain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of tDCS in FM pain as compared with sham tDCS. The secondary objective was to explore the relationship of methodology, population, and intervention factors and the analgesic effect of tDCS in FM. For the primary objective, a systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating tDCS as an intervention for FM pain were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web Of Science. Studies were excluded if they used cross-over designs or if they did not use tDCS as an intervention for pain or did not measure clinical pain. Analysis for the main outcome was performed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed for all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the secondary objective, a meta-regression was conducted to explore methodology, population, and intervention factors potentially related to the ES. Sixteen RCTs were included. Six studies presented a high risk of bias. Significant reduction in pain scores were found for FM (standardized mean difference = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.80-1.65, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis considering tDCS as a neural target revealed no differences between common neural sites. Meta-regression revealed that the duration of the tDCS protocol in weeks was the only factor associated with the ES, in which protocols that lasted four weeks or longer reported larger ES than shorter protocols. Results suggest an analgesic effect of tDCS in FM. tDCS protocols that last four weeks or more may be associated with larger ESs. Definite conclusions are inadequate given the large heterogeneity and limited quality of evidence of the included studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is tentative evidence to support the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in fibromyalgia (FM), with large variability in the effect size (ES) encountered in different clinical trials. Understanding the source of the variability and exploring how it relates to the clinical results could characterize effective neuromodulation protocols and ultimately guide care in FM pain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of tDCS in FM pain as compared with sham tDCS. The secondary objective was to explore the relationship of methodology, population, and intervention factors and the analgesic effect of tDCS in FM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
For the primary objective, a systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating tDCS as an intervention for FM pain were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web Of Science. Studies were excluded if they used cross-over designs or if they did not use tDCS as an intervention for pain or did not measure clinical pain. Analysis for the main outcome was performed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed for all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the secondary objective, a meta-regression was conducted to explore methodology, population, and intervention factors potentially related to the ES.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were included. Six studies presented a high risk of bias. Significant reduction in pain scores were found for FM (standardized mean difference = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.80-1.65, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis considering tDCS as a neural target revealed no differences between common neural sites. Meta-regression revealed that the duration of the tDCS protocol in weeks was the only factor associated with the ES, in which protocols that lasted four weeks or longer reported larger ES than shorter protocols.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest an analgesic effect of tDCS in FM. tDCS protocols that last four weeks or more may be associated with larger ESs. Definite conclusions are inadequate given the large heterogeneity and limited quality of evidence of the included studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36435660
pii: S1094-7159(22)01332-0
doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.10.044
pmc: PMC10203058
mid: NIHMS1858544
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics
0
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
715-727Subventions
Organisme : NCCIH NIH HHS
ID : R01 AT009491
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Pain. 2022 Apr;23(4):641-656
pubmed: 34785366
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63
pubmed: 10877304
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Aug;55(8):1507-17
pubmed: 27150193
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020 Sep;17(9):879-898
pubmed: 32845195
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Apr;103(4):1735-40
pubmed: 20107115
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec;7(1):135
pubmed: 28273933
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Apr 11;14:133
pubmed: 23577981
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Jun;63(6):821-6
pubmed: 21312349
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 30;12(6):e0180328
pubmed: 28665989
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017 Jul;124(7):799-808
pubmed: 28321566
Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Oct;131(10):2375-2382
pubmed: 32828040
Front Integr Neurosci. 2020 Sep 18;14:46
pubmed: 33071764
Brain. 2002 Oct;125(Pt 10):2238-47
pubmed: 12244081
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Neurology. 2005 Aug 9;65(3):466-8
pubmed: 16087918
Neurophysiol Clin. 2020 Sep;50(4):279-288
pubmed: 32654884
Brain Stimul. 2012 Jul;5(3):208-213
pubmed: 22037139
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 20;8(1):12477
pubmed: 30127510
Pain. 2010 Jun;149(3):495-500
pubmed: 20356675
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Feb;103(2):245-254
pubmed: 34480887
Open Rheumatol J. 2011;5:45-50
pubmed: 22046206
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015 Aug 13;1:15022
pubmed: 27189527
Neuromodulation. 2017 Apr;20(3):215-222
pubmed: 28220641
Brain. 2006 Jan;129(Pt 1):55-64
pubmed: 16183660
Scand J Pain. 2014 Mar 1;5(3):161-166
pubmed: 25067981
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Mar 10;10:68
pubmed: 27014012
Hum Brain Mapp. 2016 Apr;37(4):1349-60
pubmed: 26749315
J Pain. 2020 Jan - Feb;21(1-2):212-224
pubmed: 31356985
Pain. 2006 May;122(1-2):197-209
pubmed: 16564618
Pain. 2016 Aug;157(8):1704-1710
pubmed: 27045524
J Pain. 2011 May;12(5):610-7
pubmed: 21497140
Rheumatol Int. 2015 May;35(5):845-54
pubmed: 25903448
J Pain. 2020 Nov - Dec;21(11-12):1085-1100
pubmed: 31982685
Brain Netw Modul. 2022 Apr-Jun;1(2):88-101
pubmed: 35845034
Neuropsychol Rev. 2019 Dec;29(4):387-396
pubmed: 31446547
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Dec;54(12):3988-98
pubmed: 17133529
Ann Med. 2022 Dec;54(1):1403-1422
pubmed: 35579545
J Physiol. 2003 Nov 15;553(Pt 1):293-301
pubmed: 12949224
Man Ther. 2010 Apr;15(2):135-41
pubmed: 20036180
Nature. 1968 Oct 26;220(5165):382-3
pubmed: 5684882
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021 Nov 17;24:100860
pubmed: 34849424
Eur J Pain. 2010 Apr;14(4):339
pubmed: 20227310
Brain Res. 2005 Apr 25;1042(1):99-107
pubmed: 15823258
Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Sep;24(6):1606-16
pubmed: 17004924
J Pain. 2016 Jan;17(1):14-26
pubmed: 26456677
J Physiol. 2000 Sep 15;527 Pt 3:633-9
pubmed: 10990547
Pain. 2019 Sep;160(9):1920-1932
pubmed: 31045746
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 30;9(10):e032710
pubmed: 31672712
Brain Stimul. 2017 Sep - Oct;10(5):893-901
pubmed: 28684258
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 Apr;62(4):460-4
pubmed: 20391499
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan;58(1):26-35
pubmed: 18163497
Br J Sports Med. 1998 Mar;32(1):20-4
pubmed: 9562159
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021 Apr 21;24(4):256-313
pubmed: 32710772
J Neurosci. 2013 Apr 24;33(17):7574-82
pubmed: 23616562
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Nov;36:101375
pubmed: 31491597
J Pain Manag. 2009;2(3):353-361
pubmed: 21170277
Clin J Pain. 2018 May;34(5):421-427
pubmed: 28877142
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2018 Jun;18(3):485-494
pubmed: 29603117
J Pain Res. 2019 Jan 03;12:209-221
pubmed: 30655690
Brain Stimul. 2012 Jul;5(3):430-431
pubmed: 21782547
J Physiol. 1964 Aug;172:369-82
pubmed: 14199369
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017 May-Jun;35 Suppl 105(3):100-105
pubmed: 28681715
Pain. 2022 Jul 1;163(7):e850-e861
pubmed: 34561393
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Aug;35(8):704-716
pubmed: 34060934
Pain. 2015 Jan;156(1):62-71
pubmed: 25599302
Princ Pract Clin Res. 2021;7(4):8-22
pubmed: 35434309
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019 Feb 13;12:117-127
pubmed: 30858740
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 3;10(1):18955
pubmed: 33144646
J Neurosci. 2016 Jan 20;36(3):1008-18
pubmed: 26791228
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jun 21;61(12):4506-21
pubmed: 27223853
Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2016 Dec 21;2:19-25
pubmed: 30214966
Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Feb 11;13:40
pubmed: 30804771