Cited by 308Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesPain Management and TreatmentSpinal Cord Injury Research

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion on neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury

Open access
Soler, M. D., Kumru, H., Pelayo, R., Vidal, J., Tormos, J. M., Fregni, F., Navarro, X., Pascual-Leone, A.·2010·Brain

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex and techniques of visual illusion, applied isolated or combined, in patients with neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury. In a sham controlled, double-blind, parallel group design, 39 patients were randomized into four groups receiving transcranial direct current stimulation with walking visual illusion or with control illusion and sham stimulation with visual illusion or with control illusion. For transcranial direct current stimulation, the anode was placed over the primary motor cortex. Each patient received ten treatment sessions during two consecutive weeks. Clinical assessment was performed before, after the last day of treatment, after 2 and 4 weeks follow-up and after 12 weeks. Clinical assessment included overall pain intensity perception, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory. The combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion reduced the intensity of neuropathic pain significantly more than any of the single interventions. Patients receiving transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion experienced a significant improvement in all pain subtypes, while patients in the transcranial direct current stimulation group showed improvement in continuous and paroxysmal pain, and those in the visual illusion group improved only in continuous pain and dysaesthesias. At 12 weeks after treatment, the combined treatment group still presented significant improvement on the overall pain intensity perception, whereas no improvements were reported in the other three groups. Our results demonstrate that transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion can be effective in the management of neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury, with minimal side effects and with good tolerability.

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 · 10.1093/brain/awq184

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The different studies regarding VW did not discuss therapy adherence.

    “The different studies regarding VW did not discuss therapy adherence [7, 15–20].”

    From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Patient characteristics section discusses treatment participation: one patient in the visual-illusion group stopped after the second session because of increased pain and transportation difficulties. It also reports two later study dropouts. Thus, this paper does discuss completion of therapy, contrary to the claim. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In some studies, a mirror was used with a video projection of walking legs; in others, walking stimuli consisted of a video of an actor in first-person view walking along a path; and in another, participants viewed their virtual arms and legs in first person view in a virtual world through a head-mounted display.

    “In some studies, a mirror was used with a video projection of walking legs [7, 15–17], in others the walking stimuli consisted of a video of an actor, in first-person view, walking along a path [18, 19] and in the last one participants viewed their virtual arms and legs in first person view in a virtual world through a head-mounted display [20].”

    From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    Split into 3 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 2 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Third-person perspective has already been described, while first-person perspective was also applied.

    “Third-person perspective has already been described [7], [15–17], while first-person perspective was also applied [18–20].”

    From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Visual illusion section describes patients viewing a video of walking legs aligned with their own upper-body reflection, so they could see themselves as if walking. This supports the use of a self-walking illusion, but the paper does not identify the visual viewpoint as first-person; its described mirror view does not establish that specific perspective. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Redondo E, Asensio E, Navarro X, Verdu ´E. Thermal and mechanical algesimetry and electrophysiological wind-up after graded spinal cord injury in the rat: relationship to astroglial and microglial reactivity. Glia 2009; 57: S161.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soler, M. D., Kumru, H., Pelayo, R., Vidal, J., Tormos, J. M., Fregni, F., Navarro, X., & Pascual-Leone, A.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Venue
Brain
Published
2010-08-04
Volume
133
Issue
9
Pages
2565-2577
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2094741229
Cited by
308
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RIUCV (Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Martír) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Brain Research Foundation
  • Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  • National Center for Research Resources (K24RR018875)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, optical illusions, neuropathic pain, spinal cord injury, primary motor cortex, analgesia, pain management, sham stimulation, dysesthesia, paroxysmal pain
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Illusions, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Cortex, Neuralgia, Pain Measurement, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self Disclosure, Spinal Cord Injuries, Treatment Outcome, Statistics, Nonparametric, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

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