2014
DOI: 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of tDCS-induced Motor Cortex Modulation on Pain in HTLV-1

Abstract: The analysis of the main outcomes in this study did not demonstrate a significant advantage of anodal tDCS applied to M1 in patients with human T-lymphotropic virus type I and chronic pain in comparison with sham tDCS, although secondary analysis suggests some superiority of active tDCS over sham. The large placebo effect observed in this study may explain the small differences between sham versus active tDCS.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
29
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(42 reference statements)
2
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, Mori et al (2010) [14] demonstrated that tDCS with the anode electrode over the M1 contralateral to the painful somatic area and cathode electrode over the SO contralateral to the stimulated motor cortex in adults with multiple sclerosis produced significant pain improvement as measured by a visual analog scale and SF-MPQ-2. In contrast, some studies found that M1-SO applied tDCS does not improve clinical pain outcomes [53]. Five sessions could be underdosing and may have limited treatment effects [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, Mori et al (2010) [14] demonstrated that tDCS with the anode electrode over the M1 contralateral to the painful somatic area and cathode electrode over the SO contralateral to the stimulated motor cortex in adults with multiple sclerosis produced significant pain improvement as measured by a visual analog scale and SF-MPQ-2. In contrast, some studies found that M1-SO applied tDCS does not improve clinical pain outcomes [53]. Five sessions could be underdosing and may have limited treatment effects [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They included, for example, an average of multiple current pain ratings from daily diaries (e.g., [11]), an average of multiple ratings of 24-hour recalled average pain (e.g., [12]), and an average of single ratings of different intensity domains (e.g., an average of the current pain, and 24-hour recalled least, worst, and average pain ratings from the Brief Pain Inventory [13]). Other domains assessed in these trials included current pain (assessed in seven trials [7,[14][15][16][17][18][19]), worst pain (assessed in five trials [7,8,[19][20][21]), and least pain (assessed in three trials [8,19,20]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not surprisingly, the direction of electrode polarization is critical in terms of the after-effects. Through stimulation of the motor cortex, tDCS can be used for: chronic pain (Deer et al 2014;Souto et al 2014;Hodaj et al 2016), pain after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (Borckardt et al 2011), trigeminal pain including refractory orofacial pain (Antal et al 2010;Hansen et al 2011;DosSantos et al 2012;Hagenacker et al 2014;Fricova et al 2016;Kreuzer et al 2017), fibromyalgia (Valle et al 2010;Cummiford et al 2016;Castillo-Saavedra et al 2018), major depression (Vigod et al 2014;Tortella et al 2015;Brunoni et al 2016;Liu et al 2017), bipolar disorder (Bersani et al 2015;Pereira-Junior et al 2015;Tortella et al 2015), schizophrenia (Agarwal et al 2013;Palm et al 2016;Gögler et al 2017), Alzheimer's disease (Nardone et al 2012;Bystad et al 2016;Narita and Yokoi 2017), modulation of associative learning (Branscheidt et al 2017), Parkinson's disease (Benninger et al 2010;Hendy et al 2016;Schabrun et al 2016), pain after stroke (Schjetnan et al 2013;Chhatbar et al 2016;Russo et al 2017) and tinnitus (Garin et al 2011;…”
Section: Nibs: Transcranial Electrical Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This problem does not occur when tACS is used in the "ripple" frequency range (Moliadze et al 2010). Ripples Kringelbach et al 2007;Pereira et al 2007Pereira et al , 2013Holslag 2018;Johnson et al 2008 Strong Holtzheimer and McDonald 2014;McNamara et al 2001;George and Belmaker 2007;Prikryl et al 2013;Fregni et al 2005;Ferreri et al 2003;Li et al 2013;Politi et al 2008;Shen et al 2016Shen et al , 2017 Non-invasive Low spatial targeting compared to DBS, higher cost compared to other non-invasive methods rTMS pain Rokyta and Fricová 2012;Fricová et al 2013;Kohútová et al 2017;Robertson et al 2010;Thomas et al 2007, Shupak et al 2006Thomas et al 2001 Non-invasive, low cost Less pronounced effect compared to rTMS tDCS chronic pain, trigeminal pain including refractory orofacial pain, fibromyalgia, major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease associative learning, Parkinson's disease, pain after stroke, tinnitus Souto et al 2014;Hodaj et al 2016;Borckardt et al 2011;Antal et al 2010;Hansen et al 2011;DosSantos et al 2012;Hagenacker et al 2014;Kreuzer et al 2017;Fricova et al 2016;Castillo-Saavedra et al 2018;Valle et al 2010;Tortella et al 2015;…”
Section: Nibs: Transcranial Electrical Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 99%