Table 5. Quality of evidence of non-invasive neuromodulation for the treatment of orofacial pain.

Certainty assessment							Summary of findings
№ of participants (studies)	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall certainty of evidence	Summary of findings
tDCS (4 RCTs) Active group N = 53 Sham group N = 53	serious a	serious b	not serious	serious c	all plausible residual confounding would suggest spurious effect, while no effect was observed	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW	Anodal M1-tDCS was effective in orofacial pain relief
rTMS (5 RCTs) Active group N = 59 Sham group N = 52	serious a	serious b	not serious	serious c	all plausible residual confounding would suggest spurious effect, while no effect was observed	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW	rTMS is a promising approach for the treatment of orofacial pain, regardless of the cortical site of stimulation.

^a The respective item received a downgrade because the majority of the studies did not blind participants and personnel and due to the outcome assessing.

^b The item received a downgrade due to a large heterogeneity among the studies.

^c The item imprecision received a downgrade due to the major studies did not perform sample size calculation and the participant did not present the same level of orofacial pain in the baseline.

⨁⨁◯◯ represents the classification obtained in the evaluated categories (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision).