Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study

OBJECTIVES:To test the proof of principle that active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex reduces pain significantly more than sham stimulation in a group of participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:The study utilized a within-partici...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Clinical journal of pain 2013-01, Vol.29 (1), p.26-34
Hauptverfasser: O’Connell, Neil E, Cossar, John, Marston, Louise, Wand, Benedict M, Bunce, David, De Souza, Lorraine H, Maskill, David W, Sharp, Andrew, Moseley, G Lorimer
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 34
container_issue 1
container_start_page 26
container_title The Clinical journal of pain
container_volume 29
creator O’Connell, Neil E
Cossar, John
Marston, Louise
Wand, Benedict M
Bunce, David
De Souza, Lorraine H
Maskill, David W
Sharp, Andrew
Moseley, G Lorimer
description OBJECTIVES:To test the proof of principle that active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex reduces pain significantly more than sham stimulation in a group of participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:The study utilized a within-participants sham-controlled, interrupted time series design. A sample of 8 participants was recruited. After 3 days of baseline measures, patients entered a 15-day experimental period (Mondays to Fridays) for 3 consecutive weeks. During this period each patient received sham stimulation daily until a randomly allocated day when active stimulation was commenced. Active stimulation was then given daily for the remaining days of the experimental period. Both the participants and the assessors were blinded. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity and unpleasantness in the last 24 hours measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included self-reported disability, depression and anxiety, a battery of cognitive tests to monitor for unwanted effects of stimulation, and patients’ perceptions of whether they had received active or sham stimulation. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:No significant effect was seen in the primary outcomes between active and sham stimulation (average pain intensity P=0.821, unpleasantness P=0.937) or across any other clinical variables. There was evidence that patients may have been able to distinguish between the active and sham conditions (P=0.035). DISCUSSION:These results do not provide evidence that tDCS is effective in the treatment of chronic back pain. The use of a small convenience sample limits the generalizability of these findings and precludes definitive conclusions on the efficacy of tDCS in chronic nonspecific low back pain.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318247ec09
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1237503403</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1237503403</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3819-df53a6da92bbd0c764066a0ad30136f5f012a1cdbe3b9346d7f77737f0aed013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EokvhDRDykQMp4ziJE27LtrSgBSrYe-TYE62pYy-2o-3yMrwqLls4cOAyMxp9__zS_IQ8Z3DGoBOvlx-uz2AAxpGztqwEKugekAWreVPUFXQPyQJE1RUtVOKEPInxGwCryxYek5OSlyVrSr4gPzdBuqhyMdLScxNQJbqaQ0CX6NdkptnKZLyjfqRpi_SjTz7QlQ8Jb6lxv3ebgDJNd4IMrbbBO6PoJ-_iDpUZ87z2e_pWqht6LY17Q5f0i3TaT-YH6lf03M-DxWKwxml6cbuzPsjsccjusz48JY9GaSM-u--nZPPuYrO6KtafL9-vlutC8ZZ1hR5rLhstu3IYNCjRVNA0EqTm-UHNWI_ASsmUHpAPHa8aLUYhBBcjSNQZOSUvj2d3wX-fMaZ-MlGhtdKhn2PPSi5q4BXwjFZHVAUfY8Cx3wUzyXDoGfR3yfQ5mf7fZLLsxb3DPEyo_4r-RJGB9gjsvU0Y4o2d9xj6LUqbtv-__QszYJ7E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1237503403</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>O’Connell, Neil E ; Cossar, John ; Marston, Louise ; Wand, Benedict M ; Bunce, David ; De Souza, Lorraine H ; Maskill, David W ; Sharp, Andrew ; Moseley, G Lorimer</creator><creatorcontrib>O’Connell, Neil E ; Cossar, John ; Marston, Louise ; Wand, Benedict M ; Bunce, David ; De Souza, Lorraine H ; Maskill, David W ; Sharp, Andrew ; Moseley, G Lorimer</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVES:To test the proof of principle that active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex reduces pain significantly more than sham stimulation in a group of participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:The study utilized a within-participants sham-controlled, interrupted time series design. A sample of 8 participants was recruited. After 3 days of baseline measures, patients entered a 15-day experimental period (Mondays to Fridays) for 3 consecutive weeks. During this period each patient received sham stimulation daily until a randomly allocated day when active stimulation was commenced. Active stimulation was then given daily for the remaining days of the experimental period. Both the participants and the assessors were blinded. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity and unpleasantness in the last 24 hours measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included self-reported disability, depression and anxiety, a battery of cognitive tests to monitor for unwanted effects of stimulation, and patients’ perceptions of whether they had received active or sham stimulation. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:No significant effect was seen in the primary outcomes between active and sham stimulation (average pain intensity P=0.821, unpleasantness P=0.937) or across any other clinical variables. There was evidence that patients may have been able to distinguish between the active and sham conditions (P=0.035). DISCUSSION:These results do not provide evidence that tDCS is effective in the treatment of chronic back pain. The use of a small convenience sample limits the generalizability of these findings and precludes definitive conclusions on the efficacy of tDCS in chronic nonspecific low back pain.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-8047</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5409</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318247ec09</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23221623</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Chronic Pain - diagnosis ; Chronic Pain - physiopathology ; Chronic Pain - prevention &amp; control ; Double-Blind Method ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Low Back Pain - diagnosis ; Low Back Pain - physiopathology ; Low Back Pain - prevention &amp; control ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Motor Cortex - physiopathology ; Pain Measurement ; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The Clinical journal of pain, 2013-01, Vol.29 (1), p.26-34</ispartof><rights>2013 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3819-df53a6da92bbd0c764066a0ad30136f5f012a1cdbe3b9346d7f77737f0aed013</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3819-df53a6da92bbd0c764066a0ad30136f5f012a1cdbe3b9346d7f77737f0aed013</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23221623$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>O’Connell, Neil E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cossar, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marston, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wand, Benedict M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunce, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Souza, Lorraine H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maskill, David W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moseley, G Lorimer</creatorcontrib><title>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study</title><title>The Clinical journal of pain</title><addtitle>Clin J Pain</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVES:To test the proof of principle that active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex reduces pain significantly more than sham stimulation in a group of participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:The study utilized a within-participants sham-controlled, interrupted time series design. A sample of 8 participants was recruited. After 3 days of baseline measures, patients entered a 15-day experimental period (Mondays to Fridays) for 3 consecutive weeks. During this period each patient received sham stimulation daily until a randomly allocated day when active stimulation was commenced. Active stimulation was then given daily for the remaining days of the experimental period. Both the participants and the assessors were blinded. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity and unpleasantness in the last 24 hours measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included self-reported disability, depression and anxiety, a battery of cognitive tests to monitor for unwanted effects of stimulation, and patients’ perceptions of whether they had received active or sham stimulation. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:No significant effect was seen in the primary outcomes between active and sham stimulation (average pain intensity P=0.821, unpleasantness P=0.937) or across any other clinical variables. There was evidence that patients may have been able to distinguish between the active and sham conditions (P=0.035). DISCUSSION:These results do not provide evidence that tDCS is effective in the treatment of chronic back pain. The use of a small convenience sample limits the generalizability of these findings and precludes definitive conclusions on the efficacy of tDCS in chronic nonspecific low back pain.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Chronic Pain - diagnosis</subject><subject>Chronic Pain - physiopathology</subject><subject>Chronic Pain - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - diagnosis</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - physiopathology</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motor Cortex - physiopathology</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0749-8047</issn><issn>1536-5409</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EokvhDRDykQMp4ziJE27LtrSgBSrYe-TYE62pYy-2o-3yMrwqLls4cOAyMxp9__zS_IQ8Z3DGoBOvlx-uz2AAxpGztqwEKugekAWreVPUFXQPyQJE1RUtVOKEPInxGwCryxYek5OSlyVrSr4gPzdBuqhyMdLScxNQJbqaQ0CX6NdkptnKZLyjfqRpi_SjTz7QlQ8Jb6lxv3ebgDJNd4IMrbbBO6PoJ-_iDpUZ87z2e_pWqht6LY17Q5f0i3TaT-YH6lf03M-DxWKwxml6cbuzPsjsccjusz48JY9GaSM-u--nZPPuYrO6KtafL9-vlutC8ZZ1hR5rLhstu3IYNCjRVNA0EqTm-UHNWI_ASsmUHpAPHa8aLUYhBBcjSNQZOSUvj2d3wX-fMaZ-MlGhtdKhn2PPSi5q4BXwjFZHVAUfY8Cx3wUzyXDoGfR3yfQ5mf7fZLLsxb3DPEyo_4r-RJGB9gjsvU0Y4o2d9xj6LUqbtv-__QszYJ7E</recordid><startdate>201301</startdate><enddate>201301</enddate><creator>O’Connell, Neil E</creator><creator>Cossar, John</creator><creator>Marston, Louise</creator><creator>Wand, Benedict M</creator><creator>Bunce, David</creator><creator>De Souza, Lorraine H</creator><creator>Maskill, David W</creator><creator>Sharp, Andrew</creator><creator>Moseley, G Lorimer</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201301</creationdate><title>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study</title><author>O’Connell, Neil E ; Cossar, John ; Marston, Louise ; Wand, Benedict M ; Bunce, David ; De Souza, Lorraine H ; Maskill, David W ; Sharp, Andrew ; Moseley, G Lorimer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3819-df53a6da92bbd0c764066a0ad30136f5f012a1cdbe3b9346d7f77737f0aed013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Chronic Pain - diagnosis</topic><topic>Chronic Pain - physiopathology</topic><topic>Chronic Pain - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - diagnosis</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - physiopathology</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motor Cortex - physiopathology</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>O’Connell, Neil E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cossar, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marston, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wand, Benedict M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunce, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Souza, Lorraine H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maskill, David W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moseley, G Lorimer</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Clinical journal of pain</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>O’Connell, Neil E</au><au>Cossar, John</au><au>Marston, Louise</au><au>Wand, Benedict M</au><au>Bunce, David</au><au>De Souza, Lorraine H</au><au>Maskill, David W</au><au>Sharp, Andrew</au><au>Moseley, G Lorimer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study</atitle><jtitle>The Clinical journal of pain</jtitle><addtitle>Clin J Pain</addtitle><date>2013-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>26</spage><epage>34</epage><pages>26-34</pages><issn>0749-8047</issn><eissn>1536-5409</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVES:To test the proof of principle that active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex reduces pain significantly more than sham stimulation in a group of participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS:The study utilized a within-participants sham-controlled, interrupted time series design. A sample of 8 participants was recruited. After 3 days of baseline measures, patients entered a 15-day experimental period (Mondays to Fridays) for 3 consecutive weeks. During this period each patient received sham stimulation daily until a randomly allocated day when active stimulation was commenced. Active stimulation was then given daily for the remaining days of the experimental period. Both the participants and the assessors were blinded. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity and unpleasantness in the last 24 hours measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included self-reported disability, depression and anxiety, a battery of cognitive tests to monitor for unwanted effects of stimulation, and patients’ perceptions of whether they had received active or sham stimulation. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:No significant effect was seen in the primary outcomes between active and sham stimulation (average pain intensity P=0.821, unpleasantness P=0.937) or across any other clinical variables. There was evidence that patients may have been able to distinguish between the active and sham conditions (P=0.035). DISCUSSION:These results do not provide evidence that tDCS is effective in the treatment of chronic back pain. The use of a small convenience sample limits the generalizability of these findings and precludes definitive conclusions on the efficacy of tDCS in chronic nonspecific low back pain.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>23221623</pmid><doi>10.1097/AJP.0b013e318247ec09</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-8047
ispartof The Clinical journal of pain, 2013-01, Vol.29 (1), p.26-34
issn 0749-8047
1536-5409
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1237503403
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Chronic Pain - diagnosis
Chronic Pain - physiopathology
Chronic Pain - prevention & control
Double-Blind Method
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain - diagnosis
Low Back Pain - physiopathology
Low Back Pain - prevention & control
Male
Middle Aged
Motor Cortex - physiopathology
Pain Measurement
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods
Treatment Outcome
title Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind Exploratory Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T14%3A17%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Transcranial%20Direct%20Current%20Stimulation%20of%20the%20Motor%20Cortex%20in%20the%20Treatment%20of%20Chronic%20Nonspecific%20Low%20Back%20Pain:%20A%20Randomized,%20Double-blind%20Exploratory%20Study&rft.jtitle=The%20Clinical%20journal%20of%20pain&rft.au=O%E2%80%99Connell,%20Neil%20E&rft.date=2013-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=26&rft.epage=34&rft.pages=26-34&rft.issn=0749-8047&rft.eissn=1536-5409&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318247ec09&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1237503403%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1237503403&rft_id=info:pmid/23221623&rfr_iscdi=true