MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402185650 · doi:10.1186/s12891-024-07805-3

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pain and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4402185650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanlin Wu, Yun Luo, Jia‐ming Yang, Yongqiang Wu, Qiang Zhu, Yi Li, Hao Hu, Jiahong Zhang, Yanbiao Zhong, Maoyuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisPhysical therapyTranscranial direct-current stimulationRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleSports medicineChronic painQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Keen Osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common chronic disabling disease characterized by joint pain and dysfunction, which seriously affects patients' quality of life. Recent studies have shown that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was a promising treatment for KOA. PURPOSE: Investigate the effects of tDCS on pain and physical function in patients with KOA. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials related to tDCS and KOA were systematically searched in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CINHL, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 23, 2024. The pain intensity was evaluated using the visual analog scale or the numeric rating scale, and the pain sensitivity was assessed using conditioned pain modulation, pressure pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or heat pain tolerance. The physical function outcome was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index or the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 503 participants were included. Compared to sham tDCS, tDCS was effective in reducing the short-term pain intensity (SMD: -0.58; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.14; p = 0.01) and pain sensitivity (SMD: -0.43; 95% CI: -0.70, -0.16; p = 0.002) but failed to significantly improve the long-term pain intensity (SMD: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.59, 0.08; p = 0.13) in KOA patients. In addition, tDCS did not significantly improve the short-term (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.08; p = 0.22) and long-term (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.22, 0.25; p = 0.90) physical function in patients with KOA. CONCLUSIONS: The tDCS can reduce short-term pain intensity and sensitivity but fails to significantly relieve long-term pain intensity and improve the physical function in patients with KOA. Thus, tDCS may be a potential therapeutic tool to reduce short-term pain intensity and pain sensitivity in patients with KOA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.028
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207