Summary of findings 4. Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS)compared to Sham for Chronic Neuropathic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis (MS).
| Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS) compared to sham for chronic neuropathic pain in MS | |||
| Patient or population: chronic neuropathic pain in MS Setting: hospital MS clinics Intervention: tRNS Comparison: sham | |||
| Outcomes | Impact | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) |
| Reduction in pain assessed with: VAS, BPI | No statistically significant changes for mean pain VAS treatment (mean VAS before 50.1; mean
VAS after 47.2) and sham groups (mean VAS before: 52.1; mean VAS after:50.3). No statistical significance before and after stimulation sham and treatment for BPI (Palm 2016). |
16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW1 ,2 |
| Reduction in anxiety and depression assessed with: HADS | No statistical significance before and after for treatment and sham for mean HADS (Palm 2016). | 16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW1, 2 |
| Reduction in fatigue assessed with: MFIS | No statistical significance before and after sham and treatment for mean total score (Palm 2016). | 16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW1 ,2 |
| BPI: Beck Pain Inventory; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; VAS; Visual Analogue Scale | |||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | |||
1 Downgraded two levels because the singular study was considered at high risk of bias (unclear risk of bias in randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors)
2 Downgraded two levels due to high risk for imprecision (singular study of small sample size)