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

Author:

Dana Elad123ORCID,Tran Cody4,Osokin Evgeny56,Westwood Duncan7ORCID,Moayedi Massieh567ORCID,Sabhaya Priyancee12,Khan James S.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

2. Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada

3. Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba affiliated to the Sackler School of Medicine Tel Aviv Israel

4. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

5. Centre for Multimodal Sensorimotor and Pain Research University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

6. Department of Dentistry Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada

7. University of Toronto Centre for the Study of Pain University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain.MethodsA 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).ResultsTwenty‐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.DiscussionThere 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.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3