PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Lara D. Veeken· 2016Q1· Review

The effects of add-on non-invasive brain stimulation in fibromyalgia: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Wen‐Hsuan Hou, Tzu-Ya Wang, Jiunn‐Horng Kang

Short summary

A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials reveals that non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including rTMS and TDCS, significantly improves pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and general health in fibromyalgia patients, with rTMS showing a greater effect size than TDCS.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS) significantly improves fibromyalgia symptoms, including pain, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.
  • rTMS demonstrated a greater effect size (0.698) compared to TDCS (0.568) in treating fibromyalgia.
  • Stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) was slightly more effective for pain reduction than dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) stimulation.
  • Most reported adverse effects from NBS were minor, suggesting feasibility and safety.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM. METHODS: We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. RESULTS: The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95% CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95% CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95% CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95% CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95% CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95% CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Lara D. Veeken, 2016 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Neurology (Neuroscience)

NeurologyNeuroscience