Trial reportSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017
[Neuromodulation using matrix stimulation : A treatment for acute pain?]
Trial report in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revealing the Central Mechanism of Acupuncture for Primary Dysmenorrhea Based on Neuroimaging: A Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently a lack of studies that evaluate the effects of matrix electrode neuromodulation on acute pain. In this prospective and randomized cross-over study, we investigated the efficacy of 4 Hz-matrix stimulation on venipuncture-induced pain in 30 healthy subjects.
methodsWe compared two conditions of neurostimulation: in EC1 (experimental condition 1), we performed venipuncture during stimulation, with 2.5 min of prestimulation with 600 stimuli; in EC2 (experimental condition 2), the length of stimulation was 5 min, at 1200 stimuli, with subsequent venipuncture. A group with no stimulation was used as control condition.
resultsThe EC2 group did not only show a 77% reduction in puncture pain when compared to the control group (p < 0.001; effect size [ES] d = 1.45), but also had a significant effect compared with EC1 (p < 0.001; ES d = 1.33). EC1, on the other hand, did not demonstrate a significant difference to the control group. The status of the veins was evaluated based on visibility and did not differ significantly between the conditions.
conclusionThe results of this study showed for the first time that pre-emptive matrix stimulation could be an effective way to reduce acute pain. The duration of stimulation seems to play a key role in the effectiveness of the neurophysiological mechanism of action. Matrix stimulation is a therapeutic intervention with very few side effects, which could, in the future, expand our pain-management options for the treatment of acute pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28674829What 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.