Various devices are available that can electrically stimulate the brain without the need for surgery or any invasive treatment in order to manage chronic pain. There are four main treatment types: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in which the brain is stimulated by a coil applied to the scalp, cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in which electrodes are clipped to the ears or applied to the scalp, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE) in which electrodes are applied to the scalp. These have been used to try to reduce pain by aiming to alter the activity of the brain, but the efficacy of these treatments is uncertain.
This review update included 56 studies: 30 of rTMS, 11 of CES, 14 of tDCS and one of RINCE. We judged only three studies as having a low risk of bias. Low or very low-quality evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS and rTMS applied to pre-frontal areas of the brain are not effective but that a single dose of high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex area of the brain provides short-term pain relief. This effect appears to be small and may be exaggerated by a number of sources of bias. Studies that gave a course of multiple treatments of rTMS produced conflicting results with no overall effect seen when we pooled the results of these studies. Most studies of rTMS are small and there is substantial variation between studies in terms of the treatment methods used. Low-quality evidence does not suggest that CES or tDCS are effective treatments for chronic pain. A single small study of RINCE provided very low-quality evidence of a short-term effect on pain. For all forms of stimulation the evidence is not conclusive and uncertainty remains.
The reporting of side effects varied across the studies. Of the studies that clearly reported side effects, short-lived and minor side effects such as headache, nausea and skin irritation were usually reported both after real and sham stimulation. There were two reports of seizure following real rTMS.
While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation. Previous readers should re-read this update.
More studies of rigorous design and adequate size are required to evaluate accurately all forms of non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.
Single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have small short-term effects on chronic pain. It is likely that multiple sources of bias may exaggerate this observed effect. The effects do not meet the predetermined threshold of minimal clinical significance and multiple-dose studies do not consistently demonstrate effectiveness. The available evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the pre-frontal cortex, CES and tDCS are not effective in the treatment of chronic pain. While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation and the conclusion regarding the effectiveness of tDCS has changed. We recommend that previous readers should re-read this update. There is a need for larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. It is likely that future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010, Issue 9. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).
To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain.
We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers. The original search for the review was run in November 2009 and searched all databases from their inception. To identify studies for inclusion in this update we searched from 2009 to July 2013.
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS or RINCE if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 with pain of three months duration or more and measured pain as a primary outcome.
Two authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses. We excluded studies judged as being at high risk of bias from the analysis. We used the GRADE system to summarise the quality of evidence for core comparisons.
We included an additional 23 trials (involving 773 participants randomised) in this update, making a total of 56 trials in the review (involving 1710 participants randomised). This update included a total of 30 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 14 tDCS and one study of RINCE(the original review included 19 rTMS, eight CES and six tDCS studies). We judged only three studies as being at low risk of bias across all criteria.
Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS (involving 528 participants) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low-frequency stimulation is ineffective (low-quality evidence) and that rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is ineffective (very low-quality evidence). We found a short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies (low-quality evidence, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.51 P < 0.01)). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 8% to 15%) reduction in pain, which does not exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimal clinically important difference (≥ 15%). Evidence for multiple-dose studies was heterogenous but did not demonstrate a significant effect (very low-quality evidence).
For CES (six studies, 270 participants) no statistically significant difference was found between active stimulation and sham (low-quality evidence).
Analysis of tDCS studies (11 studies, 193 people) demonstrated significant heterogeneity and did not find a significant difference between active and sham stimulation (very low-quality evidence). Pre-specified subgroup analysis of tDCS applied to the motor cortex (n = 183) did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect and this lack of effect was consistent for subgroups of single or multiple-dose studies.
One small study (n = 91) at unclear risk of bias suggested a positive effect of RINCE over sham stimulation on pain (very low-quality evidence).
Non-invasive brain stimulation appears to be frequently associated with minor and transient side effects, though there were two reported incidences of seizure related to active rTMS in the included studies.