The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023
Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Jong Keun, You JaeIn, Son Sangpil, Suh InHyuk, Lim Jong Youb
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.
DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.
SETTING: Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.
RESULTS: Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.
CONCLUSION: Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).
DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.
SETTING: Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.
RESULTS: Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.
CONCLUSION: Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).