↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Resting-State Electroencephalography and Laser-Evoked Potentials in Migraine Patients: Mechanistic Insights

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Resting-State Electroencephalography and Laser-Evoked Potentials in Migraine Patients: Mechanistic Insights
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleonora Vecchio, Iege Bassez, Katia Ricci, Cristina Tassorelli, Eric Liebler, Marina de Tommaso

Abstract

A recent multicenter trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post-stimulation. Here we aimed to investigate the potential effect of nVNS in the modulation of spontaneous and pain related bioelectrical activity in a subgroup of migraine patients enrolled in the PRESTO trial by using resting-state electroencephalography and trigeminal laser-evoked potentials (LEPs). LEPs were recorded for 27 migraine patients who received active or sham nVNS over the cervical vagus nerve. We measured power values for frequencies between 1-100 Hz in a resting-state condition and the latency and amplitude of N1, N2, and P2 components of LEPs in a basal condition during and after active or sham vagus nerve stimulation (T0, T1, T2). The P2 evoked by the right and the left trigeminal branch was smaller during active nVNS. The sham device also attenuated the P2 amplitude evoked by the left trigeminal branch at T1 and T2, but this attenuation did not reach significance. No changes were observed for N1 amplitude, N1, N2, P2 latency, or pain rating. nVNS induced an increase of EEG power in both slow and fast rhythms, but this effect was not significant as compared to the sham device. These findings suggest that nVNS acts on the cortical areas that are responsible for trigeminal pain control and pave the ground for future studies aimed at confirming the possible correlations with clinical outcomes, including the effect on symptoms that are directly correlated with trigeminal pain processing and modulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Engineering 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#8,406,670
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,355
of 7,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,357
of 348,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#56
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.