Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 693

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury

Fregni, Felipe, Boggio, Paulo S., Lima, Moises C., Ferreira, Merari J.L., Wagner, Tim, Rigonatti, Sergio P., Castro, Anita W., Souza, Daniel R., Riberto, Marcelo, Freedman, Steven D., Nitsche, Michael A., Pascual-Leone, Alvaro·2006·Pain

Abstract

Past evidence has shown that motor cortical stimulation with invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation is effective to relieve central pain. Here we aimed to study the effects of another, very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)--on pain control in patients with central pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients were randomized to receive sham or active motor tDCS (2mA, 20 min for 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, Clinician Global Impression and Patient Global Assessment. Safety was assessed with a neuropsychological battery and confounders with the evaluation of depression and anxiety changes. There was a significant pain improvement after active anodal stimulation of the motor cortex, but not after sham stimulation. These results were not confounded by depression or anxiety changes. Furthermore, cognitive performance was not significantly changed throughout the trial in both treatment groups. The results of our study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion. We discuss potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity.

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 · 10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 693

Metadata

Authors
Fregni, F., Boggio, P. S., Lima, M. C., Ferreira, M. J. L., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S. P., Castro, A. W., Souza, D. R., Riberto, M., Freedman, S. D., Nitsche, M. A., & Pascual-Leone, A.
Venue
Pain
Published
2006-05
Volume
122
Issue
1
Pages
197-209
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103390289
Cited by
693
References
3
FWCI
16.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023
The paper
Fregni, F., Boggio, P. S., Lima, M. C., Ferreira, M. J. L., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S. P., Castro, A. W., Souza, D. R., Riberto, M., Freedman, S. D., Nitsche, M. A., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2006). A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023

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.