Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19055333›Full record

Trial reportJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2008

Effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation on symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, sham-controlled pilot study.

Terry Kit Selfe, Cheryl Bourguignon, Ann Gill Taylor

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Effects of a Single Application of ScenarJournal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Terry Kit SelfeCenter for the Study of Complementary and Alternative Therapies, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. tks6b@virginia.edu
Cheryl Bourguignon
Ann Gill Taylor

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN COMPLEMENTARY &ALTERNATIVE MEDICINET32AT000052 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI TAYLOR, ANN GILL · 2000 to 2010
$3.6M
CAM CLINICAL RESEARCH CURRICULUM PROGRAMK30AT000060 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI TAYLOR, ANN GILL · 2000 to 2004
$1.5M
NCCIH NIH HHS 5-K30-AT000060NCCIH NIH HHS 5-T32-AT000052NCCIH NIH HHS K30 AT000060NCCIH NIH HHS T32 AT000052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation used as an adjunct to usual care, on pain and other symptoms in adults with osteoarthritis of the knee.

designRandomized, sham-controlled trial.

settingA university in the southern United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven (37) adults with knee osteoarthritis (based on American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria).

interventionsSeventeen (17) noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (active or sham) sessions over 8 weeks with a week 12 follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven-point numeric rating scale for weekly pain; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), patient global assessment, and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) completed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12.

resultsFor the main outcome, pain, the differences between the groups over time did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.05). However, a clinically important reduction in pain (defined as a 2-point or 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric rating scale) was maintained at week 12 by the active noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group (2.17 points, 34.55% reduction) but not the sham group (1.63, 26.04% reduction). Pain improved over time in participants regardless of group membership (numeric rating scale average pain, p = 0.002; numeric rating scale worst pain, p < 0.001; and WOMAC pain, p < 0.001), as did WOMAC function, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC total score (all p < 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups over time for the SF-36 Vitality scale, F (3, 105) = 3.54, p = 0.017. In addition, the active device group improved on the patient global assessment from baseline to week 8 compared to the sham device group, F (1, 35) = 4.025, p = 0.053.

conclusionsIn this pilot study, clinically important reductions in knee pain were maintained at week 12 in the active, but not the sham, noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group. Further study of this noninvasive therapy is warranted.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementAdultAnalysis of VarianceElectric Stimulation TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePainPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19055333
PMCPMC2810549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.