Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with different frequencies on neuropathic orofacial pain: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Liao M, Diao Y, Pan J, Wong LS, Subramaniam G, Vasanthi RK, Liao L

Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 2024

355 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive technique used to treat neuropathic orofacial pain (NOP). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS in managing NOP and reducing health risks. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in various databases, including PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and Clinical Trials.gov. Thirteen relevant articles were identified and assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the evidence rating for the studies. The analysis of the thirteen randomized controlled trials, involving 355 eligible patients, demonstrated moderate evidence supporting the significant effect of rTMS in reducing pain intensity (Mean Difference (MD): -1.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -2.39 to -1.48, p p p p p p > 0.05) or psychological status (p > 0.05). Overall, the study demonstrated that rTMS is an effective and safe way to reduce pain, improve QOL, enhance sensory status, and create a positive clinical impression in patients with NOP. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of rTMS on sleep and psychological well-being in individuals with NOP.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 355 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free