Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic migraine: A meta-analysis

Zhong, Jiugen; Lan, Wanting; Feng, Yanqing; Yu, Ligen; Xiao, Ru; Shen, Yingying; Zou, Zhiyong; Hou, Xiaohui

doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.1050090

Cited by 14 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, 7 studies were considered as meeting our inclusion criteria. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] A flow chart of literature selection is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Results On Literature Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 3 displays the results of evaluating methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Among the 7 SRs, 4 were rated as moderate quality 19,[21][22][23] and 3 were rated as low quality 18,20,24 It was worth noting that items 2 and 7 received poor ratings. All the SRs included PICO components and 4 19,[21][22][23] reported study protocols in advance.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the 7 SRs, 4 were rated as moderate quality 19,[21][22][23] and 3 were rated as low quality 18,20,24 It was worth noting that items 2 and 7 received poor ratings. All the SRs included PICO components and 4 19,[21][22][23] reported study protocols in advance. However, none of them provided a comprehensive list of excluded studies with exclusion reasons.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only 3 studies met all the requirements for every item. Most of the included studies adequately reported on most items, with over a half Studies included in systematic review (n =7) [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]…”

Section: Reporting Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several SRs and MAs have been conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of TMS for migraine management. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] However, not all SRs can provide reliable evidence, and low-quality evidence can mislead clinical decision-making. Therefore, an overview that summarizes the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of TMS for migraine treatment is needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Therapy for Migraine: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Shen,

Li,

Wei

et al. 2023

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) systematically collected, evaluated, and combined the evidence for migraine treatment with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in various databases, such as PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedical Literature. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and strength of evidence of the included studies using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, the PRISMA checklist, and the GRADE system. Results: We performed an overview of 7 relevant SRs, of which 4 were of moderate quality and 3 were of low quality according to AMSTAR 2. All SRs had low risk of bias in Phase 1 (Assessing relevance), Domain 1 (Study eligibility criteria), and Domain 4 (Synthesis and findings) as evaluated by ROBIS. In Domain 2 (Identification and selection of studies), 4 SRs (57.1%) had low risk of bias, while in Domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal) and Risk of Bias in the Review Phase 3, 4 SRs (57.1%) had low risk of bias. The PRISMA reporting standards were generally comprehensive, but some limitations were observed in the assessments, pooled results, evidence reliability, registration and protocols, and funding sources. The GRADE levels ranged from moderate to low, with 10 outcomes of moderate quality and 6 outcomes of low quality. The main reason for the low quality of evidence was the small sample size and high heterogeneity of the available studies. Conclusion: TMS may improve migraine severity and frequency, but the evidence is limited due to methodological flaws and heterogeneity. Future studies should standardize use, assess side effects, and compare with other treatments.

show abstract

“…Finally, 7 studies were considered as meeting our inclusion criteria. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] A flow chart of literature selection is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Results On Literature Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%