High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Safiai, Nabil Izzaatie Mohamad; Mohamad, Nur Afiqah; Basri, Hamidon; Mat, Liyana Najwa Inche; Hoo, Fan Kee; Rashid, Anna Misyail Abdul; Khan, Abdul Hanif Khan Yusof; Loh, Wei Chao; Baharin, Janudin; Fernandez, Aaron; Samsudin, Intan Nureslyna; Mohamed, Mohd Hazmi; Ching, Siew Mooi; Lee, Kai Wei; Ramachandran, Vasudevan; Pozo‐Rosich, Patricia; Sulaiman, Wan Aliaa Wan

doi:10.1177/03331024221092423

Cited by 7 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 41 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%

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reporting Quality Of the Included Srsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 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

show abstract

Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stephens,

Dhanasekara,

Montalvan

et al. 2024

Curr Pain Headache Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safety and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: an analysis of over 1200 sessions

Bakulin

Zabirova

Poydasheva

et al. 2023

RJTAO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is increasingly used in research and clinical practice, therefore, the issues of its safety and tolerability are especially important. Currently, serious adverse reactions (ARs) are extremely rare. The more common mild ARs that can develop during and after stimulation remain less well understood but may affect procedure tolerance and treatment adherence.Objective: to study the tolerability and safety of TMS in patients and healthy volunteers.Material and methods. In a retrospective cohort study using standardized questionnaires, ARs were assessed during and within 24 hours after TMS in patients (n=103) and healthy volunteers (n=74).Results. In total, the data of 1246 sessions were analyzed. ARs were observed during 56.8% of the analyzed sessions and within 24 hours after in 21.5% of the sessions. In most cases, they were mild and did not affect the intent to continue stimulation. TMS withdrawal due to ARs was reported in six cases (3.3% of participants), three of which experienced severe headache (HA) after stimulation. During stimulation, sleepiness (32.4%) and pain in the stimulation area (20.3%) were most often recorded. The most frequent AR within 24 hours after TMS was HA (13.3% of sessions), its characteristics are described and possible diagnostic criteria are proposed.Conclusion. ARs can occur during and after a TMS session and are mild in most cases. TMS-induced HA, which is the most common AR within 24 hours after TMS, can be considered a distinct type of secondary HA, the pathogenesis of which requires further study.

show abstract

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Safety and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: an analysis of over 1200 sessions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About