Lefaucheur 2001a

Methods	Cross‐over RCT
Participants	Country of study: France Setting: laboratory Condition: intractable neuropathic pain (mixed central and facial) Prior management details: refractory to drug management n = 14 Age: 34‐80 years, mean 57.2 Duration of symptoms: not specified "chronic" Gender distribution: 6 M, 8 F
Interventions	Stimulation type: rTMS, figure‐of‐8 coil Stimulation parameters: frequency 10 Hz; coil orientation not specified; 80% RMT; number of trains 20; duration of trains 5 s; ITI 55 s; total number of pulses 1000 Stimulation location: M1, contralateral to painful side Number of treatments: x 1 for each condition Control type: sham coil used (? inert)
Outcomes	Primary: 0‐10 VAS, anchors not specified When taken: daily for 12 days poststimulation Secondary: none
Notes	COI: no declaration made Sources of support: grant from the ‘Institut UPSA de la douleur’
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Two different sessions of rTMS separated by 3 weeks at least were randomly performed in each patient." Comment: method of randomisation not specified but less critical in cross‐over design
Adequate blinding of participants?	Unclear risk	Comments: sham credibility assessment ‐ suboptimal. This study used the same sham coil as that used in Lefaucheur 2004, which in that paper was stated as not meeting the criteria for an ideal sham
Adequate blinding of assessors?	Unclear risk	Comment: blinding of assessors not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no dropout apparent from the data presented
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: pain score numerical values not provided clearly with measures of variance for any time point in the report but were provided by study authors on request
Free from carry‐over effects?	Low risk	Comment: 3/52 washout period makes carry‐over effects unlikely
Study Size	High risk	Comment: < 50 participants per treatment arm
Study duration	High risk	Comment: < 2 weeks' follow‐up
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no significant other bias detected