Comparative Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Techniques for Chronic Central and Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Overview

1. Graduate School, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, People’s Republic of China
2. Rehabilitation Center, Second Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

Background: Neuromodulation is increasingly used for chronic neuropathic pain, but the comparative efficacy of invasive and non-invasive techniques remains unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different neuromodulation interventions for chronic central and peripheral neuropathic pain.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registries from inception to March 6, 2026. Eligible interventions included repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S). The primary outcome was pain intensity at the primary endpoint reported in each study. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and treatment ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Risk of bias and confidence in the evidence were evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), respectively.

Results: A total of 68 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Most active neuromodulation interventions showed greater pain reduction than control conditions. PNS was significantly superior to sham stimulation, no treatment, and conventional medical management, while SCS was significantly superior to no treatment and conventional medical management. rTMS, TENS, and tDCS also significantly reduced pain compared with sham stimulation. PNS, SCS, and rTMS occupied relatively high ranking positions; however, these rankings were derived from a heterogeneous and uneven evidence network with very low confidence and should not be interpreted as evidence of treatment superiority.

Conclusion: Several neuromodulation interventions were associated with greater pain reduction than their available control conditions. However, most comparisons between active interventions were not statistically significant, the evidence network was uneven, and confidence in the evidence was very low. Treatment rankings should therefore be considered exploratory and should not be interpreted as establishing the superiority of any individual intervention.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY-NC), from the paper cited above.

Code

The paper says that its authors' code is available on request: it was not published with the paper, so there is nothing to verify.

The paper's code and data availability statement is in the Data section.

Tracing map

A tracing map links a paper to the code its authors published: this paper has none (its code is available on request), so it has no map.

Data

No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.

Data Sharing Statement

All data analyzed in this study were extracted from published randomized controlled trials. Supplementary Tables S1 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx)–S5 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx), Supplementary Figures S1 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx)–S28 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx), the detailed search strategies in Supplementary Appendix S1 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx), and the CINeMA assessment outputs in Supplementary Appendix S2 (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx) are provided in the Supplementary Materials (https://www.dovepress.com/article/supplementary_file/624205/624205 Supplementary Material.docx). Statistical code and the extracted data used for the analyses are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. No new individual participant data were generated in this study.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY-NC), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 27 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, pages, dates, 5 authors, 6 keywords, 1 funder, 91 references.

Cite

This paper

Shi, T., Deng, Z., Ma, M., Li, Q., & Wang, Y. (2026). Comparative Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Techniques for Chronic Central and Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Journal of pain research, 19, 624205. https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s624205

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1016/j.neurot.2026.e00960 [code]

Personalizing neuromodulation for chronic pain: A connectivity-guided trial.

Journal: Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics

In common: pain, other, clinical / translational, 3 references

[2] doi: [code]

Real-World Safety and Tolerability of Low-Intensity Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study

Journal: Journal of clinical medicine

In common: pain, other, clinical / translational, 2 references

[3] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0337726 [code]

Classification of chronic pain and spinal cord stimulation response using machine learning in magnetoencephalography data

Journal: —

In common: pain, 2 references

[4] doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2026.100366 [code]

Lower resting-state functional connectivity between frontoparietal and sensory networks is associated with recent pain intensity in a community sample of youth.

Journal: Neuroimage. Reports

In common: pain, 2 references

[5] doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102793 [code]

A predictive corticospinal model for pain perception.

Journal: Cell reports. Medicine

In common: pain, 2 references

[6] doi:10.1002/advs.202523223

VDAC1 Upregulation Induces Hyperexcitability of Nociceptive Sensory Neurons Via Enhanced Mitochondrial Atp Efflux in Neuropathic Pain.

Journal: Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

In common: pain, 2 references

[7] doi:10.2147/jpr.s566042

Quantum Mechanical Mechanisms in the Therapeutic Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Quantum Computational Model.

Journal: Journal of pain research

In common: pain, 2 references

[8] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72934-3 [code]

Multi-focal ultrasound neuromodulation to the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex disrupts behavioural and neural pain processing.

Journal: Nature communications

In common: pain, other, 1 reference

[9] doi:10.1038/s41380-026-03560-0

Optimized multichannel 4 mA vs conventional transcranial direct current stimulation for major depressive disorder: A randomized sham-controlled trial.

Journal: Molecular psychiatry

In common: other, clinical / translational, 1 reference

[10] doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2026.103431

ROS-responsive nanoplatform-mediated targeted intranasal delivery of Piezo2 siRNA for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia.

Journal: Materials today. Bio

In common: pain, clinical / translational, 1 reference

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.