Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Flow diagram for study selection.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Characteristics of included randomized controlled trials.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment of included randomized controlled trials.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Additional short-term effectiveness results from randomized controlled trials.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 2.

Results of meta-analysis of RCT data for ONS compared with sham stimulation: days with prolonged (≥4 hours) moderate or severe headache.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Results of meta-analysis of RCT data for ONS compared with sham stimulation: response rate.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Adverse effects associated with implantation and/or use of occipital nerve stimulation: lead migrations.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Adverse effects associated with implantation and/or use of occipital nerve stimulation: infections.

Saper 2011—the number shown was infections at site for lead/extension tract. There were additionally four ‘complications at incision sites’.[17] Silberstein et al. 2012—there were additionally ‘wound site complications’ (four at 3 months;[28] five at 1 year[30]). Lipton et al. described infections being the most frequent device-related adverse events but did not report the numbers in their published abstract.[16] The three cases described by Kiss and colleagues were ‘inflammation at surgical sites’ (3/10, 30%) that were treated with intravenous and oral antibiotics.[33] They stated that ‘neither blood nor wound cultures identified bacterial growth’.

More »

Fig 5 Expand