Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for pain management in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). A comprehensive literature search was conducted through May 2024 in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included clinical trials, observational, and case-control studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager v.5.3, with heterogeneity evaluated by chi-square and I² tests. Five studies (245 patients) were included, with rTMS sessions ranging from 10 to 28. Meta-analysis showed significant pain reduction with rTMS compared to sham treatment. At 2 weeks post-treatment, the mean pain score difference (visual analogue scale) was –1.44 (95% CI: –2.12 to –0.77; p<0.0001), with sustained relief at 1 and 3 months. However, no significant differences were found in the patient’s global impression of change scale, sleep quality, quality of life (QoL), medication regulation, or adverse events. rTMS exerted a consistent pain relief effect of rTMS, but its impact on broader aspects of patient well-being was less clear. rTMS provides sustained pain relief in PHN for up to 3 months, but its impact on QoL and secondary outcomes remains unclear, warranting further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".