ClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT02487966Updated Sep 25, 2025Results posted

Optimizing Rehabilitation for Phantom Limb Pain Using Mirror Therapy and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

An interventional study of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): active (Soterix ©) and Mirror Therapy: active in Phantom Limb Pain and Amputation, Traumatic, sponsored by Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. Active, not recruiting at 2 sites in 2 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-09-25.

Sponsored by Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
132
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a two-site study that explores the effects of mirror therapy and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS, Soterix ©) in a randomized factorial controlled trial in which patients will be assigned to one of four groups: active tDCS and active MT; sham tDCS and active MT; active tDCS and sham MT (which consists of using a covered mirror for the therapy); and both sham tDCS and sham MT (covered mirror).

Read the detailed description

Phantom limb pain (PLP) belongs to a group of neuropathic pain syndromes that is characterized by pain in the amputated limb. Rehabilitation for chronic pain involves a structured treatment plan targeting all dimensions of the pain experience, and should include a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach that allows patients to receive the most benefit according to their needs. As in other chronic pain syndromes, chronic Phantom limb pain (PLP) is often difficult to treat; showing to be resistant to classical pharmacological and surgical treatment approaches.

In this context, we hypothesize that novel treatments of PLP need to target specific neural networks associated with this maladaptive plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS,Soterix ©) is a powerful and non-invasive technique of brain stimulation that is known to significantly modulate plasticity and alleviate chronic pain in various syndromes. device for this trial. This study usiGiven tDCS underlying neural mechanisms, it is critical to use a multimodal approach to treatment - using both tDCS and behavioral therapy simultaneously. In this case, an ideal therapy is mirror therapy (MT).

Recently, we showed that anodal tDCS can induce a selective short-lasting relief from PLP, and repeated applications of anodal tDCS induces long-lasting analgesic effects. These preliminary results show that tDCS may be a promising rehabilitative tool for the management of chronic PLP. This neurorehabilitation technique is commonly used in PLP, and is designed to modulate cortical mechanisms of pain by performing movements using the unaffected limb in front of a mirror. We propose to carry out a mechanistic, factorial, randomized controlled trial to evaluate a novel rehabilitation approach combining tDCS and MT in PLP patients. We aim to compare the brain changes before and after treatment in order to study the mechanisms underlying PLP.

02

Conditions studied

  • Phantom Limb Pain
  • Amputation, Traumatic

Keywords

  • tDCS
  • Mirror Therapy
  • Phantom Limb Pain
  • Traumatic amputation
03

In context

Phantom Limb

163 studies on the registry are indexed under Phantom Limb; 35 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 132 is above the median of 30 across 125 interventional studies indexed under Phantom Limb.

Browse Phantom Limb studies →

Lead sponsor

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital is the lead sponsor of 117 studies on the registry; 27 are open to participants now.

Of its 20 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 17 (85%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Able to provide to participate in the study.
  2. Subject is older than 18 years.
  3. Unilateral lower limb amputation.
  4. Traumatic amputation greater than 1 year ago.
  5. Chronic PLP for at least 3 months previous to enrollment in the study, experienced regularly for at least once a week.
  6. Average pain of at least 4 on a numeric rating scale in the previous week (NRS; ranging from 0 to 10).
  7. If the subject is taking any medications, dosages must be stable for at least 2 weeks prior to the enrollment of the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Pregnancy or trying to become pregnant in the next 2 months.
  2. History of alcohol or drug abuse within the past 6 months as self-reported.
  3. Presence of the following to transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation

    • Ferromagnetic metal in the head (e.g., plates or pins, bullets, shrapnel)
    • Implanted neck or head electronic medical devices (e.g., cochlear implants, vagus nerve stimulator)
  4. History of chronic pain previous to the amputation.
  5. Head injury resulting in loss of consciousness for at least 30 min or pos-traumatic amnesia for greater than 24 hours, as self-reported
  6. Unstable medical conditions (e.g. uncontrolled diabetes, uncompensated cardiac issues, heart failure or ).
  7. Uncontrolled Epilepsy or prior seizures within the last 1 year.
  8. Suffering from severe depression (as defined by a score of >30 in the Beck Depression Inventory).*
  9. History of unexplained fainting spells or loss of consciousness as self-reported during the last 2 years.
  10. History of neurosurgery, as self-reported.
  11. Mirror Therapy in the previous 3 months
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: long-term lung disease that makes it hard to breathe out, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Factorial assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
132 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Active tDCS and Active Mirror Therapy

    Subjects will receive 20 minutes of active tDCS, while receiving 15 minutes of active Mirror Therapy.

    Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): active (Soterix ©) · Behavioral: Mirror Therapy: active

  • Experimental
    Active tDCS and sham Mirror Therapy

    Subjects will receive 20 minutes of active tDCS, while receiving 15 minutes of sham Mirror Therapy.

    Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): active (Soterix ©) · Behavioral: Mirror Therapy: Sham

  • Experimental
    Sham tDCS and active Mirror Therapy

    Subjects will receive 20 minutes of sham tDCS, while receiving 15 minutes of active Mirror Therapy.

    Behavioral: Mirror Therapy: active · Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): sham (Soterix ©)

  • Sham comparator
    Sham tDCS and sham Mirrory Therapy

    Subjects will receive 20 minutes of sham tDCS, while receiving 15 minutes of sham Mirror Therapy.

    Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): sham (Soterix ©) · Behavioral: Mirror Therapy: Sham

Interventions

  • Devicetranscranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): active (Soterix ©)

    Subjects will undergo tDCS stimulation. For both active and sham stimulation, we will use electrodes of 35cm\^2, at an intensity of 2mA on the primary motor cortex contralateral to the amputated leg. For active tDCS, the subject will undergo stimulation for 20 minutes.

  • BehavioralMirror Therapy: active

    Subjects will be asked to perform movements (15 minutes daily) using the unaffected limb while watching its mirrored reflection superimposed over the affected limb. During Mirror Therapy, subjects will be asked to consciously relate the movement observed in the mirror to their phantom limb and to keep their attention focused on the task. Instructions will be explained verbally, demonstrated by a therapist, and performed by the subject in front of the therapist.

  • Devicetranscranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): sham (Soterix ©)

    Subjects will undergo tDCS stimulation. For both active and sham stimulation, we will use electrodes of 35cm\^2, at an intensity of 2mA on the primary motor cortex contralateral to the amputated leg. The subject will undergo stimulation for 20 minutes. This is the same parameters as the active one, except the current will be ramped up and then down again (for 30 seconds total) to simulate the feeling of active stimulation.

  • BehavioralMirror Therapy: Sham

    Subjects will be asked to perform movements (15 minutes daily) using the unaffected limb while watching its mirrored reflection superimposed over the affected limb, only the mirror will be covered. During Mirror Therapy, subjects will be asked to consciously relate the movement observed in the mirror to their phantom limb and to keep their attention focused on the task. Instructions will be explained verbally, demonstrated by a therapist, and performed by the subject in front of the therapist. We will use the same all of these techniques as active Mirror Therapy only the mirror will be covered during all activities.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Pain

    The primary endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in PLP from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS pain scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no pain'', 10 = ''pain as bad as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

    Time frame: 4 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Stump Pain

    The endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in Stump Pain from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS Phantom Limb Stump Pain scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no Phantom Limb Stump Pain'', 10 = ''Phantom Limb Stump Pain as bad as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

    Time frame: 4 weeks

  2. Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Sensation

    The endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in Phantom Limb Sensation from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS Phantom Limb Sensation scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no Phantom Limb Sensation'', 10 = ''Phantom Limb Sensation as much as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

    Time frame: 4 weeks

07

Results

Posted Jun 21, 2021

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneActive tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy
Started29282827
Completed28242625
Not completed1422

Outcome measures

PrimaryChanges in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Pain

The primary endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in PLP from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS pain scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no pain'', 10 = ''pain as bad as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

Time frame:
4 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Pain
units on a scaleActive tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Pain-2.84 ± 2.95-3.35 ± 3.24-1.78 ± 2.96-2.58 ± 2.78
SecondaryChanges in the Visual Analog Scale for Stump Pain

The endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in Stump Pain from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS Phantom Limb Stump Pain scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no Phantom Limb Stump Pain'', 10 = ''Phantom Limb Stump Pain as bad as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

Time frame:
4 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Stump Pain
units on a scaleActive tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Stump Pain-1.31 ± 2.99-1.9 ± 3.99-0.91 ± 2.94-0.96 ± 2.84
SecondaryChanges in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Sensation

The endpoint will be the severity of pain measured by changes in Phantom Limb Sensation from baseline to 4 weeks (value at 4 weeks minus value at baseline), as indexed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS Phantom Limb Sensation scale is a simple 10- point scale (0 = ''no Phantom Limb Sensation'', 10 = ''Phantom Limb Sensation as much as you can imagine''). Since we are using a difference, smaller values (negative) represent a better outcome.

Time frame:
4 weeks
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Sensation
units on a scaleActive tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy
Changes in the Visual Analog Scale for Phantom Limb Sensation-1.86 ± 2.55-2.55 ± 2.64-1.35 ± 2.64-2.83 ± 3.87

Adverse events

Collected over 3 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Active tDCS and Active Mirror Therapy0/29 (0%)0/29 (0%)7/29 (24.1%)
Active tDCS and Sham Mirror Therapy0/28 (0%)0/28 (0%)6/28 (21.4%)
Sham tDCS and Active Mirror Therapy0/28 (0%)0/28 (0%)6/28 (21.4%)
Sham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy0/27 (0%)0/27 (0%)6/27 (22.2%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventActive tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory Therapy
Tingling sensation over stimulation areaSkin and subcutaneous tissue disorders7/296/286/286/27

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Active tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory TherapyTotal
Mean48.24 ± 16.2839.96 ± 15.9646 ± 12.7342.96 ± 12.2844.34 ± 14.82
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Active tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory TherapyTotal
Female710111038
Male2218171774
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Active tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory TherapyTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native11002
Asian01113
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander00000
Black or African American766625
White1415151559
More than one race455519
Unknown or Not Reported30104
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Active tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory TherapyTotal
United States109101039
Brazil1919181773
Phantom Limb Pain
Phantom Limb Pain(units on a scale)Active tDCS and Active Mirror TherapyActive tDCS and Sham Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Active Mirror TherapySham tDCS and Sham Mirrory TherapyTotal
Mean6.12 ± 1.886.29 ± 1.676.09 ± 1.755.90 ± 1.576.08 ± 1.71
08

Study locations

2 sites
  • Spaulding Rehabilitation Network Research Institute
    Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129, United States
  • IMREA HCFMUSP - Rede Lucy Montoro
    São Paulo, 04116-030, Brazil
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Flor H. Phantom-limb pain: characteristics, causes, and treatment. Lancet Neurol. 2002 Jul;1(3):182-9. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00074-1. PubMed 12849487 ↗
  • Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain. Curr Rev Pain. 2000;4(2):166-70. doi: 10.1007/s11916-000-0052-0. PubMed 10998730 ↗
  • Manchikanti L, Singh V. Managing phantom pain. Pain Physician. 2004 Jul;7(3):365-75. PubMed 16858476 ↗
  • Birbaumer N, Lutzenberger W, Montoya P, Larbig W, Unertl K, Topfner S, Grodd W, Taub E, Flor H. Effects of regional anesthesia on phantom limb pain are mirrored in changes in cortical reorganization. J Neurosci. 1997 Jul 15;17(14):5503-8. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-14-05503.1997. PubMed 9204932 ↗
  • Borsook D, Becerra L, Fishman S, Edwards A, Jennings CL, Stojanovic M, Papinicolas L, Ramachandran VS, Gonzalez RG, Breiter H. Acute plasticity in the human somatosensory cortex following amputation. Neuroreport. 1998 Apr 20;9(6):1013-7. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199804200-00011. PubMed 9601659 ↗
  • Flor H, Elbert T, Knecht S, Wienbruch C, Pantev C, Birbaumer N, Larbig W, Taub E. Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature. 1995 Jun 8;375(6531):482-4. doi: 10.1038/375482a0. PubMed 7777055 ↗
  • Grusser SM, Winter C, Muhlnickel W, Denke C, Karl A, Villringer K, Flor H. The relationship of perceptual phenomena and cortical reorganization in upper extremity amputees. Neuroscience. 2001;102(2):263-72. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(00)00491-7. PubMed 11166112 ↗
  • Montoya P, Ritter K, Huse E, Larbig W, Braun C, Topfner S, Lutzenberger W, Grodd W, Flor H, Birbaumer N. The cortical somatotopic map and phantom phenomena in subjects with congenital limb atrophy and traumatic amputees with phantom limb pain. Eur J Neurosci. 1998 Mar;10(3):1095-102. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00122.x. PubMed 9753177 ↗
  • Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D, Stewart M. Perceptual correlates of massive cortical reorganization. Science. 1992 Nov 13;258(5085):1159-60. doi: 10.1126/science.1439826. No abstract available. PubMed 1439826 ↗
  • Davis KD, Kwan CL, Crawley AP, Mikulis DJ. Event-related fMRI of pain: entering a new era in imaging pain. Neuroreport. 1998 Sep 14;9(13):3019-23. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199809140-00018. PubMed 9804308 ↗
  • Foell J, Bekrater-Bodmann R, Diers M, Flor H. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain: brain changes and the role of body representation. Eur J Pain. 2014 May;18(5):729-39. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00433.x. Epub 2013 Dec 10. PubMed 24327313 ↗
  • Lotze M, Flor H, Grodd W, Larbig W, Birbaumer N. Phantom movements and pain. An fMRI study in upper limb amputees. Brain. 2001 Nov;124(Pt 11):2268-77. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.11.2268. PubMed 11673327 ↗
  • Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):845-50. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003. Epub 2006 Jan 19. PubMed 16427357 ↗
  • Bolognini N, Olgiati E, Maravita A, Ferraro F, Fregni F. Motor and parietal cortex stimulation for phantom limb pain and sensations. Pain. 2013 Aug;154(8):1274-80. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.040. Epub 2013 Apr 19. PubMed 23707312 ↗
  • Bolognini N, Spandri V, Olgiati E, Fregni F, Ferraro F, Maravita A. Long-term analgesic effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex on phantom limb and stump pain: a case report. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Oct;46(4):e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.06.014. Epub 2013 Aug 7. No abstract available. PubMed 23932177 ↗
  • Facchini S, Romani M, Tinazzi M, Aglioti SM. Time-related changes of excitability of the human motor system contingent upon immobilisation of the ring and little fingers. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Mar;113(3):367-75. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00009-3. PubMed 11897537 ↗
  • Rioult-Pedotti MS, Friedman D, Hess G, Donoghue JP. Strengthening of horizontal cortical connections following skill learning. Nat Neurosci. 1998 Jul;1(3):230-4. doi: 10.1038/678. PubMed 10195148 ↗
  • Boggio PS, Castro LO, Savagim EA, Braite R, Cruz VC, Rocha RR, Rigonatti SP, Silva MT, Fregni F. Enhancement of non-dominant hand motor function by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Lett. 2006 Aug 14;404(1-2):232-6. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.05.051. Epub 2006 Jun 30. PubMed 16808997 ↗
  • Fregni F, Boggio PS, Mansur CG, Wagner T, Ferreira MJ, Lima MC, Rigonatti SP, Marcolin MA, Freedman SD, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2005 Sep 28;16(14):1551-5. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000177010.44602.5e. PubMed 16148743 ↗
  • Hummel F, Cohen LG. Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005 Mar;19(1):14-9. doi: 10.1177/1545968304272698. PubMed 15673839 ↗
  • Floel A, Cohen LG. Contribution of noninvasive cortical stimulation to the study of memory functions. Brain Res Rev. 2007 Feb;53(2):250-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.08.006. Epub 2006 Oct 4. PubMed 17023050 ↗
  • Monti A, Cogiamanian F, Marceglia S, Ferrucci R, Mameli F, Mrakic-Sposta S, Vergari M, Zago S, Priori A. Improved naming after transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Apr;79(4):451-3. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.135277. Epub 2007 Dec 20. PubMed 18096677 ↗
  • Iyer MB, Mattu U, Grafman J, Lomarev M, Sato S, Wassermann EM. Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology. 2005 Mar 8;64(5):872-5. doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000152986.07469.E9. PubMed 15753425 ↗
  • Fregni F, Boggio PS, Nitsche M, Bermpohl F, Antal A, Feredoes E, Marcolin MA, Rigonatti SP, Silva MT, Paulus W, Pascual-Leone A. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp Brain Res. 2005 Sep;166(1):23-30. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-2334-6. Epub 2005 Jul 6. PubMed 15999258 ↗
  • MacIver K, Lloyd DM, Kelly S, Roberts N, Nurmikko T. Phantom limb pain, cortical reorganization and the therapeutic effect of mental imagery. Brain. 2008 Aug;131(Pt 8):2181-91. doi: 10.1093/brain/awn124. Epub 2008 Jun 20. PubMed 18567624 ↗
  • Rothgangel AS, Braun SM, Beurskens AJ, Seitz RJ, Wade DT. The clinical aspects of mirror therapy in rehabilitation: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011 Mar;34(1):1-13. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283441e98. PubMed 21326041 ↗
  • Chan BL, Witt R, Charrow AP, Magee A, Howard R, Pasquina PF, Heilman KM, Tsao JW. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2206-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc071927. No abstract available. PubMed 18032777 ↗
  • Darnall BD, Li H. Home-based self-delivered mirror therapy for phantom pain: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med. 2012 Mar;44(3):254-60. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0933. PubMed 22378591 ↗
  • MacLachlan M, McDonald D, Waloch J. Mirror treatment of lower limb phantom pain: a case study. Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Jul 22-Aug 5;26(14-15):901-4. doi: 10.1080/09638280410001708913. PubMed 15497919 ↗
  • Kim SY, Kim YY. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. Korean J Pain. 2012 Oct;25(4):272-4. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2012.25.4.272. Epub 2012 Oct 4. PubMed 23091690 ↗
  • Soler MD, Kumru H, Pelayo R, Vidal J, Tormos JM, Fregni F, Navarro X, Pascual-Leone A. Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion on neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury. Brain. 2010 Sep;133(9):2565-77. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq184. Epub 2010 Aug 4. PubMed 20685806 ↗
  • Fregni F, Boggio PS, Lima MC, Ferreira MJ, Wagner T, Rigonatti SP, Castro AW, Souza DR, Riberto M, Freedman SD, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A. A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain. 2006 May;122(1-2):197-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023. Epub 2006 Mar 27. PubMed 16564618 ↗
  • Cheatle MD. Depression, chronic pain, and suicide by overdose: on the edge. Pain Med. 2011 Jun;12 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S43-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01131.x. PubMed 21668756 ↗
  • Brodie EE, Whyte A, Niven CA. Analgesia through the looking-glass? A randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of viewing a 'virtual' limb upon phantom limb pain, sensation and movement. Eur J Pain. 2007 May;11(4):428-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.06.002. Epub 2006 Jul 20. PubMed 16857400 ↗
  • Moseley GL. Graded motor imagery for pathologic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2006 Dec 26;67(12):2129-34. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000249112.56935.32. Epub 2006 Nov 2. PubMed 17082465 ↗
  • Kooijman CM, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Elzinga A, van der Schans CP. Phantom pain and phantom sensations in upper limb amputees: an epidemiological study. Pain. 2000 Jul;87(1):33-41. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00264-5. PubMed 10863043 ↗
  • Whyte AS, Niven CA. Psychological distress in amputees with phantom limb pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Nov;22(5):938-46. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00352-9. PubMed 11728797 ↗
  • Villamar MF, Wivatvongvana P, Patumanond J, Bikson M, Truong DQ, Datta A, Fregni F. Focal modulation of the primary motor cortex in fibromyalgia using 4x1-ring high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS): immediate and delayed analgesic effects of cathodal and anodal stimulation. J Pain. 2013 Apr;14(4):371-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.12.007. Epub 2013 Feb 14. PubMed 23415877 ↗
  • Portilla AS, Bravo GL, Miraval FK, Villamar MF, Schneider JC, Ryan CM, Fregni F. A feasibility study assessing cortical plasticity in chronic neuropathic pain following burn injury. J Burn Care Res. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):e48-52. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182700675. PubMed 23292595 ↗
  • Beck AT, Epstein N, Brown G, Steer RA. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988 Dec;56(6):893-7. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.56.6.893. No abstract available. PubMed 3204199 ↗
  • Pangman VC, Sloan J, Guse L. An examination of psychometric properties of the mini-mental state examination and the standardized mini-mental state examination: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res. 2000 Nov;13(4):209-13. doi: 10.1053/apnr.2000.9231. PubMed 11078787 ↗
  • Aldington D, Small C, Edwards D, Ralph J, Woods P, Jagdish S, Moore RA. A survey of post-amputation pains in serving military personnel. J R Army Med Corps. 2014 Mar;160(1):38-41. doi: 10.1136/jramc-2013-000069. Epub 2013 Jul 13. PubMed 24109094 ↗
  • Rahimi A, Mousavi B, Soroush M, Masumi M, Montazeri A. Pain and health-related quality of life in war veterans with bilateral lower limb amputations. Trauma Mon. 2012 Summer;17(2):282-6. doi: 10.5812/traumamon.5135. Epub 2012 Jul 31. PubMed 24350107 ↗
  • Sinha R, van den Heuvel WJ, Arokiasamy P, van Dijk JP. Influence of adjustments to amputation and artificial limb on quality of life in patients following lower limb amputation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014 Mar;37(1):74-9. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000038. PubMed 24157864 ↗
  • Ware JE Jr, Gandek B, Kosinski M, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M, Thunedborg K. The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1167-70. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00108-5. PubMed 9817134 ↗
  • Chan EA, Chung JW, Wong TK, Lien AS, Yang JY. Application of a virtual reality prototype for pain relief of pediatric burn in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs. 2007 Apr;16(4):786-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01719.x. PubMed 17402961 ↗
  • Baudic S, Attal N, Mhalla A, Ciampi de Andrade D, Perrot S, Bouhassira D. Unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex does not affect cognition in patients with fibromyalgia. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Jan;47(1):72-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Oct 15. PubMed 23079535 ↗
  • Souto G, Borges IC, Goes BT, de Mendonca ME, Goncalves RG, Garcia LB, Sa KN, Coutinho MR, Galvao-Castro B, Fregni F, Baptista AF. Effects of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation on pain in HTLV-1: a blind randomized clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2014 Sep;30(9):809-15. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000037. PubMed 24300224 ↗
  • Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A; Safety of TMS Consensus Group. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Dec;120(12):2008-2039. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016. Epub 2009 Oct 14. PubMed 19833552 ↗
  • Brunoni AR, Schestatsky P, Lotufo PA, Bensenor IM, Fregni F. Comparison of blinding effectiveness between sham tDCS and placebo sertraline in a 6-week major depression randomized clinical trial. Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Feb;125(2):298-305. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.020. Epub 2013 Aug 30. PubMed 23994192 ↗
  • Klein MM, Treister R, Raij T, Pascual-Leone A, Park L, Nurmikko T, Lenz F, Lefaucheur JP, Lang M, Hallett M, Fox M, Cudkowicz M, Costello A, Carr DB, Ayache SS, Oaklander AL. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research. Pain. 2015 Sep;156(9):1601-1614. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000210. PubMed 25919472 ↗
  • Williams JA, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F. Interhemispheric modulation induced by cortical stimulation and motor training. Phys Ther. 2010 Mar;90(3):398-410. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090075. Epub 2010 Jan 28. PubMed 20110339 ↗
  • Rossini PM, Micera S, Benvenuto A, Carpaneto J, Cavallo G, Citi L, Cipriani C, Denaro L, Denaro V, Di Pino G, Ferreri F, Guglielmelli E, Hoffmann KP, Raspopovic S, Rigosa J, Rossini L, Tombini M, Dario P. Double nerve intraneural interface implant on a human amputee for robotic hand control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 May;121(5):777-83. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.01.001. Epub 2010 Jan 27. PubMed 20110193 ↗
  • Kujirai T, Sato M, Rothwell JC, Cohen LG. The effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 Aug;89(4):227-34. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(93)90100-4. PubMed 7688685 ↗
  • Reuter M, Fischl B. Avoiding asymmetry-induced bias in longitudinal image processing. Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 1;57(1):19-21. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.076. Epub 2011 Mar 3. PubMed 21376812 ↗
  • Villiger M, Estevez N, Hepp-Reymond MC, Kiper D, Kollias SS, Eng K, Hotz-Boendermaker S. Enhanced activation of motor execution networks using action observation combined with imagination of lower limb movements. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 28;8(8):e72403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072403. eCollection 2013. PubMed 24015241 ↗
  • Iseki K, Hanakawa T, Shinozaki J, Nankaku M, Fukuyama H. Neural mechanisms involved in mental imagery and observation of gait. Neuroimage. 2008 Jul 1;41(3):1021-31. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.010. Epub 2008 Mar 20. PubMed 18450480 ↗
  • Bajwa S, Bermpohl F, Rigonatti SP, Pascual-Leone A, Boggio PS, Fregni F. Impaired interhemispheric interactions in patients with major depression. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008 Sep;196(9):671-7. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318183f86f. PubMed 18791428 ↗
  • Schwenkreis P, Witscher K, Janssen F, Dertwinkel R, Zenz M, Malin JP, Tegenthoff M. Changes of cortical excitability in patients with upper limb amputation. Neurosci Lett. 2000 Oct 27;293(2):143-6. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(00)01517-2. PubMed 11027854 ↗
  • Moller HJ, Muller H, Borison RL, Schooler NR, Chouinard G. A path-analytical approach to differentiate between direct and indirect drug effects on negative symptoms in schizophrenic patients. A re-evaluation of the North American risperidone study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995;245(1):45-9. doi: 10.1007/BF02191543. PubMed 7540426 ↗
  • Boynton GM, Engel SA, Glover GH, Heeger DJ. Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1. J Neurosci. 1996 Jul 1;16(13):4207-21. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-13-04207.1996. PubMed 8753882 ↗
  • Forman SD, Cohen JD, Fitzgerald M, Eddy WF, Mintun MA, Noll DC. Improved assessment of significant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): use of a cluster-size threshold. Magn Reson Med. 1995 May;33(5):636-47. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910330508. PubMed 7596267 ↗
  • Fregni F, Boggio PS, Nitsche MA, Marcolin MA, Rigonatti SP, Pascual-Leone A. Treatment of major depression with transcranial direct current stimulation. Bipolar Disord. 2006 Apr;8(2):203-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2006.00291.x. No abstract available. PubMed 16542193 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Schauenburg A, Lang N, Liebetanz D, Exner C, Paulus W, Tergau F. Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):619-26. doi: 10.1162/089892903321662994. PubMed 12803972 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, Schlitterlau A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, Henning S, Tergau F, Paulus W. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol. 2003 Nov 15;553(Pt 1):293-301. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916. Epub 2003 Aug 29. PubMed 12949224 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Liebetanz D, Antal A, Lang N, Tergau F, Paulus W. Modulation of cortical excitability by weak direct current stimulation--technical, safety and functional aspects. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;56:255-76. doi: 10.1016/s1567-424x(09)70230-2. No abstract available. PubMed 14677403 ↗
  • Priori A. Brain polarization in humans: a reappraisal of an old tool for prolonged non-invasive modulation of brain excitability. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Apr;114(4):589-95. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00437-6. PubMed 12686266 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Liebetanz D, Lang N, Antal A, Tergau F, Paulus W. Safety criteria for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in humans. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Nov;114(11):2220-2; author reply 2222-3. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00235-9. No abstract available. PubMed 14580622 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Antal A, Paulus W, Hummel F, Boggio PS, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimul. 2008 Jul;1(3):206-23. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004. Epub 2008 Jul 1. PubMed 20633386 ↗
  • Nitsche MA, Jaussi W, Liebetanz D, Lang N, Tergau F, Paulus W. Consolidation of human motor cortical neuroplasticity by D-cycloserine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Aug;29(8):1573-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300517. PubMed 15199378 ↗
  • Schley MT, Wilms P, Toepfner S, Schaller HP, Schmelz M, Konrad CJ, Birbaumer N. Painful and nonpainful phantom and stump sensations in acute traumatic amputees. J Trauma. 2008 Oct;65(4):858-64. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31812eed9e. PubMed 18849803 ↗
  • Fregni F, Gimenes R, Valle AC, Ferreira MJ, Rocha RR, Natalle L, Bravo R, Rigonatti SP, Freedman SD, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, Boggio PS. A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Dec;54(12):3988-98. doi: 10.1002/art.22195. PubMed 17133529 ↗
  • CREUTZFELDT OD, FROMM GH, KAPP H. Influence of transcortical d-c currents on cortical neuronal activity. Exp Neurol. 1962 Jun;5:436-52. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(62)90056-0. No abstract available. PubMed 13882165 ↗
  • Wassermann EM. Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Jan;108(1):1-16. doi: 10.1016/s0168-5597(97)00096-8. PubMed 9474057 ↗
  • Pinto CB, Saleh Velez FG, Bolognini N, Crandell D, Merabet LB, Fregni F. Optimizing Rehabilitation for Phantom Limb Pain Using Mirror Therapy and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jul 6;5(3):e138. doi: 10.2196/resprot.5645. PubMed 27383993 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jul 2015, a primary completion of Mar 2020 and a completion of Dec 2026. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

Results were first posted in Jun 2021, 1 year 2 months after primary completion.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 22, 2015
First posted
Jul 2, 2015
Start
Jul 2015
Primary completionActual
Mar 27, 2020
CompletionEst.
Dec 21, 2026
Results first posted
Jun 21, 2021
Last update
Sep 25, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 25, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02487966
Responsible party
Felipe Fregni, MD, PhD, MPH (Principal Investigator, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 2, 2015
Start date
Jul 2015
Primary completion
Mar 27, 2020
Completion
Dec 21, 2026 (estimated)
Results posted
Jun 21, 2021
Last update
Sep 25, 2025

Study contacts

Felipe Fregni, MD, PhD, MPH
principal investigator · Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Sep 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion