Peripheral magnetic stimulation for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-16 DOI:10.1111/papr.13332
Elad Dana, Cody Tran, Evgeny Osokin, Duncan Westwood, Massieh Moayedi, Priyancee Sabhaya, James S Khan
{"title":"Peripheral magnetic stimulation for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Elad Dana, Cody Tran, Evgeny Osokin, Duncan Westwood, Massieh Moayedi, Priyancee Sabhaya, James S Khan","doi":"10.1111/papr.13332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest was conducted from inception to July 2023 to identify studies of any design published in English language that enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) that received PMS for treatment of a chronic peripheral neuropathic pain disorder (pain > 3 months).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies were identified which included 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five case series, two case reports, and one non-randomized trial. PMS regimens varied across studies and ranged from 5 to 240 min per session over 1 day to 1 year of treatment. Results across included studies were mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits while others showing no significant differences. Of nine placebo-controlled RCTs, four reported statistically significant findings in favor of PMS use. In the meta-analysis, PMS significantly reduced pain scores compared to control within 0-1 month of use (mean difference -1.64 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale, 95% confidence interval -2.73 to -0.56, p = 0.003, I<sup>2</sup> = 94%, 7 studies [264 participants], very low quality of evidence), but not at the 1-3 months and >3 months of PMS use (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Minimal to no adverse effects were reported with PMS use.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is limited and low-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on PMS usage, however, the available data is encouraging, especially for short-term applications of this novel modality. Large high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish definitive efficacy and safety effects of PMS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13332","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain.

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest was conducted from inception to July 2023 to identify studies of any design published in English language that enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) that received PMS for treatment of a chronic peripheral neuropathic pain disorder (pain > 3 months).

Results: Twenty-three studies were identified which included 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five case series, two case reports, and one non-randomized trial. PMS regimens varied across studies and ranged from 5 to 240 min per session over 1 day to 1 year of treatment. Results across included studies were mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits while others showing no significant differences. Of nine placebo-controlled RCTs, four reported statistically significant findings in favor of PMS use. In the meta-analysis, PMS significantly reduced pain scores compared to control within 0-1 month of use (mean difference -1.64 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale, 95% confidence interval -2.73 to -0.56, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, 7 studies [264 participants], very low quality of evidence), but not at the 1-3 months and >3 months of PMS use (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Minimal to no adverse effects were reported with PMS use.

Discussion: There is limited and low-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on PMS usage, however, the available data is encouraging, especially for short-term applications of this novel modality. Large high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish definitive efficacy and safety effects of PMS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外周磁刺激治疗慢性外周神经病理性疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的对有关外周磁刺激(PMS)治疗慢性外周神经病理性疼痛效果的文献进行系统综述:方法:对MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、CINHAL、Web of Science和ProQuest进行了系统检索,检索时间从开始到2023年7月,检索对象为接受PMS治疗慢性周围神经病理性疼痛(疼痛超过3个月)的成年患者(≥18岁):结果:共发现 23 项研究,其中包括 15 项随机对照试验 (RCT)、5 项病例系列、2 项病例报告和 1 项非随机试验。不同研究的 PMS 治疗方案各不相同,每次治疗时间从 5 分钟到 240 分钟不等,治疗时间从 1 天到 1 年不等。纳入研究的结果参差不齐,有些研究显示了治疗效果,而有些研究则显示没有明显差异。在九项安慰剂对照研究中,有四项研究的结果具有统计学意义,支持使用 PMS。在荟萃分析中,与对照组相比,使用 PMS 后 0-1 个月内的疼痛评分明显降低(0-10 分数字评分量表的平均差异为-1.64,95% 置信区间为-2.73 至-0.56,p = 0.003,I2 = 94%,7 项研究 [264 名参与者],证据质量极低),但使用 PMS 1-3 个月和 3 个月以上的疼痛评分则没有明显降低(证据质量分别为极低和较低)。使用经前综合征药物的不良反应极少,甚至没有:讨论:就使用 PMS 提出明确建议的证据有限且质量不高,但现有数据令人鼓舞,尤其是在短期使用这种新方法方面。需要进行大规模、高质量的随机对照试验,以确定 PMS 的确切疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
The sacroiliac joint. Lead fracture in dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Expression of cytokines at baseline correlate/predict in the disc the outcome of surgery after disc degeneration: A 12-month follow-up study. Septic arthritis of the cervical facet joint: Clinical report and review of the literature. Fatty infiltration of the erector spinae.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1