Cited by 80Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchMigraine and Headache Studies

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Managing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury-Related Headaches

Leung, Albert, Shukla, Shivshil, Fallah, Amir, Song, David, Lin, Lisa, Golshan, Shahrokh, Tsai, Alice, Jak, Amy +2 more·2016·Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface

Abstract

Objective Headache is one of the most common debilitating chronic pain conditions in either active or retired military personnel with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). This study assessed the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in alleviating MTBI-related headache (MTBI-HA). Materials and method Veterans with MTBI-HA were randomized to receive either real rTMS (REAL group) at 10 hz for a total of 2000 pulses divided into 20 trains with one-sec inter-train interval or sham rTMS (SHAM group) at the left motor cortex (LMC) with brain magnetic resonance imaging neuronavigation guidance. Pretreatment, posttreatment one-week and four-week headache and neuropsychological assessments were conducted. Result Thirty veterans were screened and twenty four (21 men and 3 women with average year-old ± SD at 14.3 ± 12.6) subjects' data were analyzed. A two-factor (visit × treatment) repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) indicated a close to significant (p = 0.06) trend of interaction between pretreatment and posttreatment one-week assessment with the intensity of the persistent daily headache decreasing from 5.7 ± 1.9 to 2.2 ± 2.7 and 4.6 ± 1.3 to 3.5 ± 2.0 for the REAL and SHAM groups, respectively. Subsequent analyses indicated REAL group demonstrated a significantly (p = 0.041) higher % of reduction in persistent headache intensity than the SHAM group (56.3 ± 48.2% vs.15.4 ± 43.6%) at the posttreatment one-week assessment and the trend continued to…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ner.12364

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 80

Authors
Leung, A., Shukla, S., Fallah, A., Song, D., Lin, L., Golshan, S., Tsai, A., Jak, A., Polston, G., & Lee, R.
Affiliations
Veterans Health Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Leung, Albert
Venue
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
133-141
ISSN
1094-7159 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134151866
Cited by
80
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
VA Rehabilitation and Research Development Award
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, mild traumatic brain injury, chronic headache, veterans, sham rTMS, headache severity, neuropsychological performance, military personnel, pain management, neuropsychological assessment, treatment safety and feasibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain Concussion, Female, Headache, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Treatment Outcome, Neuronavigation, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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