Lefaucheur 2006

Methods	Cross‐over RCT, 3 conditions
Participants	Country of study: France Setting: laboratory Condition: unilateral chronic neuropathic pain (mixed central and peripheral) Prior management details: refractory to drug management n = 22 Age: 28‐75 years, mean 56.5 (SD 2.9) Duration of symptoms: 2‐18 years, mean 5.4 (SD 4.1) Gender distribution: 12 M, 10 F
Interventions	Stimulation type: rTMS, figure‐of‐8 coil Stimulation parameters: Condition 1: frequency 10 Hz; coil orientation posteroanterior; 90% RMT; number of trains 20; duration of trains 6 s; ITI 54 s; total number of pulses 1200 Condition 2: frequency 1 Hz; coil orientation posteroanterior; 90% RMT; number of trains 1; duration of trains 20 min; total number of pulses 1200 Condition 3: sham coil Stimulation location: M1 contralateral to painful side Number of treatments: x 1 for each condition
Outcomes	Primary: 0‐10 VAS pain, anchors not specified When taken: pre‐ and poststimulation Secondary: none
Notes	AEs: not reported 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: "Three sessions of motor cortex rTMS, separated by at least 3 weeks, were performed in random order" 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 as 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 only reported for measures of cortical excitability
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: level of dropout not reported and unclear 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 study report but were provided by the study authors on request
Free from carry‐over effects?	Low risk	Quote: "Post hoc tests did not reveal any differences between the three pre‐rTMS assessments regarding excitability values or pain levels"
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