Ayache 2016.

Methods	Randomised sham‐controlled trial,cross‐over and double‐blinded study Randomisation through computer generation Study conducted in France Allocation concealment not stated
Participants	Population source: participants enrolled from Neurology Department of Henri Mondor Hospital. Numbers: randomised 16, anodal transcranial direct current stimulation 8, sham 8 Inclusion criteria:age 18‐70 years,definitively diagnosed with multiple according to McDonalds Criteria, right‐handedness based on Edinburgh Inventory, neuropathic pain > 3 months as per Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, VAS > 40 over average 1 week Exclusion criteria: multiple sclerosis relapses within last 2 months, changes in pharmacological and physiotherapy in last month, presence of comorbid neurodegenerative or psychiatric disorders, history of substance abuse, absence of measurable pain‐related evoked potentials at right hand, severe deficits in visual acuity and fields by examination, severe upper limb impairment by Medical Research Council for muscle power. Age: mean age 48.9 years, range 38‐67 years Gender: women 13, men 3 Type of MS: relapsing remitting 11, secondary progressive 4, primary progressive 1 Pain type: neuropathic pain
Interventions	Treatment: anodal tDCS, 2mA current Control: sham tDCS Duration: 3 consecutive days of tDCS stimulation (20‐minute sessions), at least 3 weeks washout period
Outcomes	VAS BPI MFIS HADS CRQ CGI
Notes	Funding: authors had received grants and gave lectures. Conflicts of interest: authors declared no commercial of financial relationships that could act as conflict of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The randomisation schedule was generated prior to the beginning of the study using a dedicated software
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were blind to treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were blind to treatment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition rated reported. None lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias detected