Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM.

METHODS: We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis.

RESULTS: The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95% CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95% CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95% CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95% CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95% CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95% CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor.

CONCLUSIONS: Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1507-17
Number of pages11
JournalRheumatology
Volume55
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2016

Fingerprint

Fibromyalgia
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Brain
Prefrontal Cortex
Pain
Databases
Depression
Motor Cortex
Libraries
Fatigue
Sleep
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Health
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Cite this

@article{dcb76138b91c424c95a5d83c09a91b2a,
title = "The effects of add-on non-invasive brain stimulation in fibromyalgia: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM.METHODS: We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis.RESULTS: The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95{\%} CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95{\%} CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95{\%} CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95{\%} CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95{\%} CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95{\%} CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor.CONCLUSIONS: Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Wen-Hsuan Hou and Tzu-Ya Wang and Jiunn-Horng Kang",
note = "{\circledC} The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1093/rheumatology/kew205",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "1507--17",
journal = "Rheumatology",
issn = "1462-0324",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of add-on non-invasive brain stimulation in fibromyalgia

T2 - a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

AU - Hou, Wen-Hsuan

AU - Wang, Tzu-Ya

AU - Kang, Jiunn-Horng

N1 - © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

PY - 2016/8

Y1 - 2016/8

N2 - OBJECTIVES: The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM.METHODS: We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis.RESULTS: The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95% CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95% CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95% CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95% CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95% CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95% CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor.CONCLUSIONS: Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.

AB - OBJECTIVES: The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM.METHODS: We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis.RESULTS: The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95% CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95% CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95% CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95% CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95% CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95% CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor.CONCLUSIONS: Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1093/rheumatology/kew205

DO - 10.1093/rheumatology/kew205

M3 - Article

C2 - 27150193

VL - 55

SP - 1507

EP - 1517

JO - Rheumatology

JF - Rheumatology

SN - 1462-0324

IS - 8

ER -