Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 5, 2025
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
Published on: January 5, 2024
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Fibromyalgia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ezekiel Y J Toh1, Jarret S P Ng, Roger S McIntyre
1From the Department of Psychological Medicine (Toh, Ng, R. Ho, C. Ho), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit (McIntyre), University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Bloomberg School of Public Health (Tran), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health (Tran), Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam; Institute of Health Innovation and Technology (iHealthtech) (R. Ho) and Alice Lee School of Nursing (Tam), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Objective:
Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in fibromyalgia on the domains of pain, depression, anxiety and quality of life.
Method:
Publications were searched with the keywords "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation" and "fibromyalgia" for randomized controlled trials that compare rTMS with sham stimulation for treating pain, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Trials available until April 2021 were searched through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The postintervention scores after 4 weeks for pain, depression, anxiety, and quality of life were extracted to compare the effects of rTMS and sham. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the stimulation site.
Results:
From 265 screened articles, 11 eligible randomized controlled trials involving 303 patients were included. The results show that rTMS is more effective than sham stimulation in improving pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.62 to -0.08; p = .01) and quality of life (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.23; p = .0003). It is not more effective than sham stimulation for depression, and anxiety. After sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis revealed that primary motor cortex stimulation was more effective than sham for improving pain (SMD = -0.57; 95% CI = -0.91 to -0.23; p = <0.01). Neither dorsolateral prefrontal cortex nor primary motor cortex stimulation was more effective than sham in improving depression and anxiety.
Conclusions:
rTMS is more effective than sham in improving pain and quality of life, but it does not demonstrate reduction in depression or anxiety.
