Page 260 - MEGIN Book Of Abstracts - 2023

eral training. These results suggested that the proposed to perform a systematic review to search for physiologi-
neurofeedback training changed phantom hand cal evidence from functional activity (as opposed to
representation and modulated pain without explicit anatomical structure) for the differentiation between
phantom hand movements or hand-like visual feed- CM and EM, as well as potential functional biomarkers.
back, thus showing the relation between the phantom For this purpose, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and
hand representations and pain. PERSPECTIVE: Our work PubMed databases were screened.
demonstrates the feasibility of using neurofeedback
training to change phantom hand representation and FINDINGS Among the 24 studies included in this re-
modulate pain perception without explicit phantom view, most of them (22) reported statistically significant
hand movements and hand-like visual feedback. The differences between the groups of CM and EM. This
results enhance the mechanistic understanding of finding is consistent regardless of brain activity acquisi-
certain treatments, such as mirror therapy, that change tion modality, ictal stage, and recording condition for a
the sensorimotor cortical representation. wide variety of analyses. That speaks for a supramodal
and domain-general differences between CM and EM
Keywords: Phantom limb pain, brain–computer interface, that goes beyond a differentiation based on the days
magnetoencephalography, neurofeedback training, sen- of migraine per month. Together, the reviewed studies
sorimotor plasticity demonstrates that electro- and magneto-physiological
brain activity (M/EEG), as well as neurovascular and
The journal of pain (2022), Vol. 23, No. 12 (35932992) (0 metabolic recordings from functional magnetic reso-
citations) nance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomog-
raphy (PET), show characteristic patterns that allow to
differentiate between CM and EM groups.
Headache-related circuits and high frequencies
evaluated by EEG, MRI, PET as potential biomarkers CONCLUSIONS Although a clear brain activity-based
to differentiate chronic and episodic migraine: biomarker has not yet been identified to distinguish
Evidence from a systematic review (2022) these subtypes of migraine, research is approaching
headache specialists to a migraine diagnosis based not
Gomez-Pilar, Javier; Martínez-Cagigal, Víctor; García- only on symptoms and signs reported by patients. Fu-
Azorín, David; Gómez, Carlos; Guerrero, Ángel; Hornero, ture studies based on M/EEG should pay special atten-
Roberto tion to the brain activity in medium and fast frequency
bands, mainly the beta band. On the other hand, fMRI
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Bioingeniería, and PET studies should focus on neural circuits and
Biomateriales Y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN), Valladolid, regions related to pain and emotional processing.
Spain; Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital
Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Ramón y Cajal 3, 47003, Keywords: Chronic migraine (CM), Electroencephalog-
Valladolid, Spain. [email protected]; Department of Medi- raphy (EEG), Episodic migraine (EM), Functional activity,
cine, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Magneto-
encephalography (MEG), Positron emission tomography
BACKGROUND The diagnosis of migraine is mainly (PET)
clinical and self-reported, which makes additional ex-
aminations unnecessary in most cases. Migraine can be The journal of headache and pain (2022), Vol. 23, No. 1
subtyped into chronic (CM) and episodic (EM). Despite (35927625) (1 citation)
the very high prevalence of migraine, there are no
evidence-based guidelines for differentiating between
these subtypes other than the number of days of mi-
graine headache per month. Thus, we consider it timely

 ontents  Index 239
C