Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 29;2021:3671800. doi: 10.1155/2021/3671800

Table 2.

PICOs included in systematic reviews.

PICOs number PICOs in bubble chart Stimulation site Frequency (Hz) Session schedule Comparison Population Outcomes Systematic reviews included Individual studies included in the systematic review Conclusion
Controlled trial (parallel) Controlled trial (cross) Number of studies Number of SRs involving the Quality (high/moderate/low/critically low) of Individual studies:
1 DLPFC, 20 Hz, long sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 20 Hz 12 sessions Sham Migraine Headache index Yang [29], Stilling [35], Feng [37], Lan [38], Shirahige [41] Brighina 2004 1 0/0/0/1 Mixed
2 DLPFC, 10 Hz, long sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 10 Hz 23 sessions Sham Migraine MIDAS Stilling [35] Conforto 2014 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially worse: immediately
Left DLPFC 10 Hz 23 sessions Sham Migraine MIDAS Yang [29], Stilling [35], Hamid [36], Feng [37], Lan [38], Shirahige [41] Conforto 2014 1 0/0/0/1 No difference: follow-up at 8 weeks
Left DLPFC 10 Hz 15 sessions Sham Chronic widespread pain NRS Hamid et al. [36], O'Connell [23] Avery 2015 1 1/0/0/1 Mixed
Left DLPFC 10 Hz 12 sessions Standard pharmacotherapy Migraine VAS Yang [29], Stilling [35], Feng [37] Rapinesi 2016 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better
3 DLPFC, 10 Hz, medium sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham BMS VAS Yang [29], O'Connell [23] , Herrero Babiloni [27] & Umezaki 2016 & 1 1/0/1/1 Mixed
4 DLPFC, 10 Hz, short sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 10 Hz 4 sessions Sham Mild traumatic brain injury related headache NRS Yang [29], Stilling [35] Leung 2018 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better: at 1 and 4 weeks
Left DLPFC 10 Hz 2 rTMS sessions, 1 rTMS + 1 sham Sham Postsurgical pain VAS, morphine use Yang [29] Borckardt 2014 1 0/0/0/1 No difference
5 DLPFC, 5 Hz, medium sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 5 Hz 10 sessions Migraine MIDAS Yang [29], Moisset [31] Sahu 2019 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better
6 DLPFC, 5 Hz, short sessions vs. sham rTMS Left DLPFC 5 Hz 5 sessions Sham Episodic migraine Attack frequency Moisset [31] Amin 2020 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better
7 S2,1 Hz, medium sessions vs. sham rTMS S2 1 Hz 10 sessions Sham Chronic visceral pain (visceral pain due to chronic pancreatitis) VAS Yang [29], Hamid [36], O'Connell [23], Galhardoni [45] Fregni 2011 1 1/0/0/1 Mixed
8 S2,1 Hz or 20 Hz, short sessions vs. sham rTMS S2 1 Hz or 20 Hz 1 session Sham Chronic pancreatitis pain VAS O'Connell [23] Fregni 2005 1 1/0/0/0 Unclear
9 Vertex,10 Hz, medium sessions vs. sham rTMS Vertex 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham SCI Galhardoni et al. [45] Yılmaz 2014 1 0/0/0/1 No difference
10 Vertex,1 Hz, short sessions vs. sham rTMS Vertex 1 Hz 5 sessions Sham Migraine NRS Yang [29], Stilling [35], Moisset [31], Feng [37], Shirahige [41] Teepker 2010 1 0/0/0/1 No difference
11 PFC, 10 Hz, short sessions vs. sham rTMS Left PFC 10 Hz 3 sessions Sham Intractable neuropathic pain of various origins NRS Yang [29], Hamid [36], O'Connell [23], Herrero Babiloni&, Kumru [39] Borckardt 2009,& 2 1/0/1/2 Mixed
Left PFC 10 Hz 1 session Sham Postsurgical pain VAS Yang [29], Goudra [40], Galhardoni [45] Borckardt 2006 Mixed
Left PFC 10 Hz 1 session Sham Postsurgical pain VAS Yang [29] Borckardt 2008 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better
12 S2 vs. S1/M1 vs. sham rTMS, 10 Hz, short sessions Right S2 10 Hz 3 sessions S1/M1 and sham Non-specified orofacial pain, trigeminal neuropathic pain NRS Yang [29] Herrero Babiloni [27]&, Kumru [39] Lindholm 2015& 1 0/0/1/1 Potentially better (S2)
13 PMC/DLPFC vs. sham rTMS, 10 Hz, medium sessions Left PMC/DLPFC 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham SCI Pain intensity: VAS Yu [28], Yang [29], O'Connell [23] Nardone 2017 2 1/0/0/2 Potentially better (immediate effect)
Left PMC/DLPFC 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham CPSP VAS Xu [30] de Oliveira 2014 Potentially better (immediate effect)
Left PMC/DLPFC 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham SCI Pain intensity: VAS Yu [28] Nardone 2017 2 1/0/1/2 No difference (follow-up)
Left PMC/DLPFC 10 Hz 10 sessions Sham CPSP VAS Yang [29], Xu [30], Moisset and Bouhassira [30], Liampas [33], Ramger [26]&, O'Connell [23], Kumru [39], Cragg [42], Chen [43] de Oliveira 2014, & No difference (from D1 to W4)
14 Left frontal cortex vs. sham rTMS, 10 Hz, short sessions Left frontal cortex 10 Hz 3 sessions Sham Migraine VAS Yang [29], Lan [38] Misra 2013 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better
15 Over the superior trapezius muscle vs. sham rTMS, 3 Hz/15 Hz, 10 sessions Over the superior trapezius muscle 3 Hz/15 Hz 10 sessions Sham Brachial plexopathy VAS Aamir [34], Kumru [39] Khedr 2012 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better(1 month)
16 ACC vs. PSI vs. sham rTMS, 10 Hz, 16 sessions ACC vs. PSI 10 Hz 16 sessions Sham CPSP or SCI NRS Yang [29], Moisset and Bouhassira [32] Galhardoni 2019 1 0/0/0/1 No difference
17 S1, SMA, preM vs. M1 vs. sham rTMS, 5 Hz, short sessions S1, SMA, preM 5 Hz 4 sessions M1 and sham NP VAS Yang [29], Gatzinsky [22], O'Connell [23], Kumru [39], Chen [43], Jin [44], Galhardoni [45], Leung [46] Hirayama 2006 1 1/0/0/1 Mixed
S1, SMA, preM 5 Hz 2 sessions M1 and sham CPSP, SCI, TGNI, PNI, RA VAS, SF-MPQ Kumru [39] Saitoh 2006 1 0/0/0/1 Potentially better (M1, maintained 3 hours)

PICO: population, intervention, control group, outcome; rTMS: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; DLPFC: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; S2: secondary somatosensory cortex; PFC: prefrontal cortex; PMC: premotor cortex; ACC: anterior cingulate cortex; PSI: posterior superior insula; S1: postcentral gyrus; SMA: supplementary motor area; preM: premotor area. BMS: burning mouth syndrome; SCI: spinal cord injury; CPSP: central poststroke pain; NP: neuropathic pain; TGNI: trigeminal neuropathic pain; PNI: peripheral nerve injury; RA: root avulsion. MIDAS: migraine disability assessment; NRS: numerical rating scale; VAS: visual analog scale; and SF-MPQ: short form of the McGill pain questionnaire. Note: (i) short: 1–5 sessions, medium: 5–10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions. (ii) In the included SRs: high-quality SRs are marked as ; &low-quality SRs; and the rest are critically low-quality SRs; (iii) in the primary studies included in SRs: included by high- and critically low-quality SRs, and included by low- and critically low-quality SRs; (iv) in the number of SRs involving the quality (high/moderate/low/critically low) of primary studies): taking the 13th PICO (PMC/DLPFC vs. sham rTMS, 10 Hz, medium sessions), as an example, a total of 2 primary studies were involved. The meaning of 1/0/0/2 and 1/0/1/2 is shown below in Figure 4.