The Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Add-on Modality to Graded Motor Imagery for Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) for the management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is supported by evidence, but its treatment effect remains generally modest. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been advocated as an adjunct intervention to enhance the effect of motor imagery approaches in pain populations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of GMI+active tDCS compared with the GMI+sham tDCS in the treatment of CRPS type I. METHODS: A total of 22 patients (n=11/group) were randomly assigned to the experimental (GMI+tDCS) or placebo (GMI+sham tDCS) group. GMI treatments lasted 6 weeks; anodal tDCS was applied over the motor cortex for 5 consecutive days during the first 2 weeks and once a week thereafter. Changes in pain perception, quality of life, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety and mood were monitored after 6 weeks of treatment (T1) and 1-month posttreatment (T2). RESULTS: GMI+tDCS induced no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with GMI+sham tDCS. Although we observed significant group differences in kinesiophobia (P=0.012), pain catastrophizing (P=0.049), and anxiety (P=0.046) at T1, these improvements were not maintained at T2 and did not reached a clinically significant difference. DISCUSSION: We found no added value of tDCS combined with GMI treatments for reducing pain in patients with chronic CRPS. However, given that GMI+sham tDCS induced no significant change, further studies comparing GMI+tDCS and tDCS alone are needed to further document tDCS's effect in CRPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".