Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain in patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) associated with standard drug therapies for neuropathic pain that does not respond to pharmacological treatment alone in patients with Bladder Pain Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis (BPS/IC). Secondary goals were to assess the effects of rTMS on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) and Quality of Life (QOL). METHODS: Fifteen patients with BPS/IC were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, sham stimulation-controlled, crossover study. Patients were treated for 2 weeks with either real-rTMS (for five consecutive days in 20-min sessions) or sham-rTMS (for five consecutive days in 20-min sessions). After a 6-week washout period, the patients who had previously undergone real-rTMS underwent sham-rTMS, and vice versa. Patients were rated at each visit by means of questionnaires on pain, urinary disturbances, depression, and QOL. RESULTS: The statistical analysis revealed significant effects of real-rTMS, when compared with sham-rTMS, on pain (in the VAS, Functional Neuropathic Pelvic Pain, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, McGill questionnaire, and Central Sensitization Inventory), urinary LUTS (in the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire score, bladder emptying, and daily urinary frequency), and QOL (in the subscores of the SF-36 related to physical pain and to emotional status). No serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that rTMS applied with an H-coil over the M1 in the area corresponding to the pelvic region in patients with BPS/IC appears to improve chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and associated urinary disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".