ArticlePloS one2016
Test-Retest Reliability of 10 Hz Conditioning Electrical Stimulation Inducing Long-Term Potentiation (LTP)-Like Pain Amplification in Humans.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03362827 (Assessment of Long-term Potentiation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Assessment of Long-term Potentiation (LTP)-Like Pain Amplification in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term bilateral change in pain and sensitivity to high-frequency cutaneous electrical stimulation in healthy subjects depends on stimulus modality: a dermatomal examination.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A test-retest reliability study of assessing small cutaneous fibers by measuring current perception threshold with pin electrodes.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background10 Hz conditioning electrical stimulation (CES) has been shown to induce long-term potentiation (LTP)-like pain amplification similar to traditional 100 Hz CES in healthy humans. The aim of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability and to estimate sample sizes required for future crossover and parallel study designs.
methodsThe 10 Hz paradigm (500 rectangular pulses lasting 50 s) was repeated on two separate days with one week interval in twenty volunteers. Perceptual intensities to single electrical stimulation (SES) at the conditioned skin site and to mechanical stimuli (pinprick and light stroking) in immediate vicinity to the conditioned skin site were recorded. Superficial blood flow (SBF) was assessed as indicator of neurogenic inflammation. All outcome measures were assessed with 10 min interval three times before and six times after the CES. The coefficient of variation and intra-class correlation coefficient were calculated within session and between sessions. Sample sizes were estimated for future crossover (Ncr) and parallel (Np) drug testing studies expected to detect a 30% decrease for the individual outcome measure following 10 Hz CES.
resultsPerceptual intensity ratings to light stroking (Ncr = 2, Np = 33) and pinprick stimulation (491 mN) (Ncr = 6, Np = 54) increased after CES and showed better reliability in crossover than parallel design. The SBF increased after CES, and then declined until reaching a plateau 20 minutes postCES. SBF showed acceptable reliability both in crossover and parallel designs (Ncr = 3, Np = 13). Pain ratings to SES were reliable, but with large estimated sample sizes (Ncr = 634, Np = 11310) due to the minor pain amplification.
conclusionsThe reliability of 10 Hz CES was acceptable in inducing LTP-like effects in the assessments of superficial blood flow, heterotopic mechanical hyperalgesia, and dysesthesia in terms of sample sizes for future crossover study designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.