Service de Neurologie, Biostatistics unit (DRCI), Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Neuro-Dol, 58 rue Montalembert, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Department of Neurology, LIM 62 Pain Center, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 10;21(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01204-4.
BACKGROUND: Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high. CONCLUSION: Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.
背景:有几种神经调节方法可用于偏头痛的治疗。本研究的目的是对使用神经刺激方法治疗偏头痛的随机对照试验(RCT)进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
方法:我们检索了 Medline 和 Embase 数据库,截至 2020 年 7 月 1 日,以获取报告使用非侵入性或侵入性神经刺激方法治疗偏头痛的急性或预防性 RCT。两名研究人员独立评估了检索到的研究的合格性并提取了数据。定量综合的结果是急性治疗的 2 小时无疼痛和预防性治疗的每月头痛天数。我们按治疗方法(刺激方法和应用部位)进行了亚组分析。使用随机效应荟萃分析对估计值进行汇总。
结果:38 篇文章纳入了定性分析(7 篇急性治疗,31 篇预防性治疗),34 篇文章纳入了定量评估(6 篇急性治疗,28 篇预防性治疗)。远程电神经调节(REN)对急性治疗有效。对于任何其他技术(单项研究),数据不足以得出结论。侵入性枕神经刺激(ONS)对偏头痛预防有效,效应量较大,但异质性较大,而眶上经皮电神经刺激(TENS)、经皮电神经刺激(PENS)和高频重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)在初级运动皮层(M1)上有效,效应量为小至中等。迷走神经刺激、左前额叶 rTMS 和 M1 上的阴极经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)没有显著效果,异质性很高。
结论:几种神经调节方法对偏头痛的管理具有潜在的意义,但证据质量非常差。未来需要进行大型和良好设计的研究,以改善目前的结果。
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2020-4
Neuromodulation. 2024-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-13
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2025-5-1
Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2025
J Headache Pain. 2024-10-31
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2024-7
Biomedicines. 2023-12-16