MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765678519 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016002

Non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for management of chronic central neuropathic pain: a scoping review protocol

2017· review· en· W2765678519 on OpenAlexafffund
Mei Lin Chen, Lin Yao, Jennifer Boger, Benjamin Thompson, Ning Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMedicineNeuropathic painPsychological interventionChronic painProtocol (science)Pain managementDeep brain stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePsychiatryAnesthesiaPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pain can affect people regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. Chronic central neuropathic pain (CCNP) is a debilitating condition that affects populations such as stroke survivors, amputees, spinal cord injury patients and patients with multiple sclerosis, with prevalence rates between 30% and 80%. This condition can be caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. CCNP is notoriously drug resistant, and few effective CCNP treatment or management strategies exist. The emergence of non-invasive brain stimulation and neuromodulation techniques provide novel avenues for managing chronic central neuropathic pain. This scoping review aims to systematically identify the methods and effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for treating and managing chronic central neuropathic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following databases will be searched systematically: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), Association of Computing Machinary (ACM) and Scopus. Additional literature will be identified by searching the reference lists of identified studies. Studies will include reviews and original research in both published and grey literatures. Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion. A quantitative analysis on the intervention type, application and efficacy will be synthesised along with a qualitative analysis to describe the effectiveness of each intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected and hence formal ethics review is not required. The results of the scoping review will be presented at relevant national and international conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and provided to the stakeholders with plain language to be posted on their websites. This scoping review will provide a foundation to guide the development of future primary research on non-invasive brain stimulation and CCNP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.332
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207