Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorBetancur, Daniel Fernando Ariaspt_BR
dc.contributor.authorTarragó, Maria da Graça Lopespt_BR
dc.contributor.authorTorres, Iraci Lucena da Silvapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFregni, Felipept_BR
dc.contributor.authorCaumo, Wolneipt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-27T04:26:29Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2021pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1664-2295pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/231322pt_BR
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The physiopathology of central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is poorly understood, which may contribute to the limitations of diagnostic and therapeutic advancements. Thus, the current systematic review was conducted to examine, from an integrated perspective, the cortical neurophysiological changes observed via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), focusing on the structural damage, and clinical symptoms in patients with CPSP. Methods: The literature review included the databases EMBASE, PubMed, and ScienceDirect using the following search terms by MeSH or Entree descriptors: [(“Cerebral Stroke”) AND (“Pain” OR “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation”) AND (“Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation”)] (through September 29, 2020). A total of 297 articles related to CPSP were identified. Of these, only four quantitatively recorded cortical measurements. Results: We found four studies with different methodologies and results of the TMS measures. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, two studies had low methodological quality and the other two studies had satisfactory methodological quality. The four studies compared the motor threshold (MT) of the stroke-affected hemisphere with the unaffected hemisphere or with healthy controls. Two studies assessed other cortical excitability measures, such as cortical silent period (CSP), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF). The main limitations in the interpretation of the results were the heterogeneity in parameter measurements, unknown cortical excitability measures as potential prognostic markers, the lack of a control group without pain, and the absence of consistent and validated diagnosis criteria. Conclusion: Despite the limited number of studies that prevented us from conducting a meta-analysis, the dataset of this systematic review provides evidence to improve the understanding of CPSP physiopathology. Additionally, these studies support the construction of a framework for diagnosis and will help improve the methodological quality of future research in somatosensory sequelae following stroke. Furthermore, they offer a way to integrate dysfunctional neuroplasticity markers that are indirectly assessed by neurophysiological measures with their correlated clinical symptoms.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers in neurology. Lausanne. Vol. 12 (Aug. 2021), 678198, 21 f.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectAcidente vascular cerebral hemorrágicopt_BR
dc.subjectStrokeen
dc.subjectNeuropathic painen
dc.subjectEstimulação magnética transcranianapt_BR
dc.subjectTMSen
dc.subjectDorpt_BR
dc.subjectCortical excitabilityen
dc.subjectCerebellumen
dc.titleCentral post-stroke pain : an intetegrative review of somatotopic damage, clinical symptoms, and neurophysiological measurespt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001132458pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples