Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 568

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomized, sham‐controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia

Open access
Fregni, Felipe, Gimenes, Rafaela, Valle, Angela C., Ferreira, Merari J. L., Rocha, Renata R., Natalle, Luane, Bravo, Riviane, Rigonatti, Sergio P., Freedman, Steven D., Nitsche, Michael A., Pascual‐Leone, Alvaro, Boggio, Paulo S.·2006·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Objective: Recent evidence suggests that fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by dysfunctional brain activity. Because transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can modulate brain activity noninvasively and can decrease pain in patients with refractory central pain, we hypothesized that tDCS treatment would result in pain relief in patients with fibromyalgia. Methods: Thirty‐two patients were randomized to receive sham stimulation or real tDCS with the anode centered over the primary motor cortex (M1) or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (2 mA for 20 minutes on 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the patient's pain, using the visual analog scale for pain, the clinician's global impression, the patient's global assessment, and the number of tender points. Other symptoms of fibromyalgia were evaluated using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and the Short Form 36 Health Survey. Safety was assessed with a battery of neuropsychological tests. To assess potential confounders, we measured mood and anxiety changes throughout the trial. Results: Anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex induced significantly greater pain improvement compared with sham stimulation and stimulation of the DLPFC (P < 0.0001). Although this effect decreased after treatment ended, it was still significant after 3 weeks of followup (P = 0.004). A small positive impact on quality of life was observed among patients who received anodal M1 stimulation. This treatment was associated with a few mild adverse events, but the frequency of these events in the active‐treatment groups was similar to that in the sham group. Cognitive changes were similar in all 3 treatment groups. Conclusion: Our findings provide initial evidence of a beneficial effect of tDCS in fibromyalgia, thus encouraging further trials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.22195

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 568

Metadata

Authors
Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A. C., Ferreira, M. J. L., Rocha, R. R., Natalle, L., Bravo, R., Rigonatti, S. P., Freedman, S. D., Nitsche, M. A., Pascual‐Leone, A., & Boggio, P. S.
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-28
Volume
54
Issue
12
Pages
3988-3998
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W2109042446
Cited by
568
References
5
FWCI
9.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomized, sham‐controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.22195
The paper
Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A. C., Ferreira, M. J. L., Rocha, R. R., Natalle, L., Bravo, R., Rigonatti, S. P., Freedman, S. D., Nitsche, M. A., Pascual‐Leone, A., & Boggio, P. S. (2006). A randomized, sham‐controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22195

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.