No abstract

Background: Neuropathic pain research has grown impressively in the past two decades, as evidenced by improvements in research quality and increments in the number of research papers. In views of this situation, the use of quantitative measurements to analyze and characterize existing research has become imperative. The aim of this research is to identify and analyze the 100 most-cited papers in neuropathic pain research.Methods: Neuropathic pain-related articles published between 2000 and 2020 were screened from Web of Science (WOS) by using the following subject terms: TI = (Neuralgia$ OR Neurodynia$ OR “Neuropathic pain” OR sciatica OR “Nerve pain$”). The publications were ranked in a descending order on the basis of citation counts, and the top 100 most-cited neuropathic pain papers were determined. Subsequently, we conducted a bibliometric study to determine the authors, journals, countries, and institutions that contributed the most to the top 100 neuropathic pain lists; describe the keywords and hotspots of the top 100 most-cited papers; and explore the factors associated with successful citations.Results: The top 100 most-cited papers were published from 2000 to 2017, and 2003 had the largest number of published papers (n = 16). The mean number of citations per paper was 480.72, with a range of 262–1,569. Forty-four kinds of journals contributed to the top 100 most-cited papers, which were predominantly published in “Pain” (n = 23). The USA was determined to be the leader of neuropathic pain research in terms of quality and quantity.Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive list of the most influential papers on neuropathic pain and demonstrates the important advances in this field to help understand academic concerns and the directions of technological innovations in neuropathic pain worldwide.

Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 0.75 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can induce long-term potentiation-like facilitation, but whether the combination of TMS and tDCS has additive effects is unclear. To address this issue, in this randomized crossover study, we investigated the effect of preconditioning with cathodal high-definition (HD) tDCS on intermittent theta burst stimulation- (iTBS-) induced plasticity in the left motor cortex. A total of 24 healthy volunteers received preconditioning with cathodal HD-tDCS or sham intervention prior to iTBS in a random order with a washout period of 1 week. The amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was measured at baseline and at several time points (5, 10, 15, and 30 min) after iTBS to determine the effects of the intervention on cortical plasticity. Preconditioning with cathodal HD-tDCS followed by iTBS showed a greater increase in MEP amplitude than sham cathodal HD-tDCS preconditioning and iTBS at each time postintervention point, with longer-lasting after-effects on cortical excitability. These results demonstrate that preintervention with cathodal HD-tDCS primes the motor cortex for long-term potentiation induced by iTBS and is a potential strategy for improving the clinical outcome to guide therapeutic decisions.

Background. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely used in the treatment of neuropathic orofacial pain (NOP). The consistency of its therapeutic efficacy with the optimal protocol is highly debatable. Objective. To assess the effectiveness of rTMS on pain intensity, psychological conditions, and quality of life (QOL) in individuals with NOP based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods. We carefully screened and browsed 5 medical databases from inception to January 1, 2022. The study will be included that use of rTMS as the intervention for patients with NOP. Two researchers independently completed record retrieval, data processing, and evaluation of methodological quality. Quality and evidence were assessed using the PEDro scores and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results. Six RCTs with 214 participants were included in this systematic review: 2 studies were considered level 1 evidence, and 4 were considered level 2 evidence. Six studies found that high-frequency rTMS had a pain-relieving effect, while 4 studies found no improvement in psychological conditions and QOL. Quality of evidence (GRADE system) ranged from moderate to high. No significant side effects were found. Conclusions. There is moderate-to-high evidence to prove that high-frequency rTMS is effective in reducing pain in individuals with NOP, but it has no significant positive effect on psychological conditions and QOL. High-frequency rTMS can be used as an alternative treatment for pain in individuals with NOP, but further studies will be conducted to unify treatment parameters, and the sample size will be expanded to explore its influence on psychological conditions and QOL.