ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2018
Matrix stimulation in cancer pain: Methodology, safety and effectiveness.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Trial
- Peripheral Electrical Stimulation Modulates Cortical Beta-Band Activity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis feasibility study addresses the applicability of matrix electrodes for the reduction of ongoing pain in cancer patients via low-frequency electrical stimulation (LFS).
methodsLow-frequency matrix stimulation (4 Hz) was applied to the skin within the 'Head's zones' referring to the tumour localization of cancer pain patients. Pain at baseline was compared to a 3-day treatment interval consisting of 5 min of matrix stimulation in the morning and evening followed by a 3-day follow-up period without therapy. Main outcome parameters included numeric rating scale values (rating scale 0-100), painDETECT, HADS, and German pain questionnaire, as well as the opioid intake, calculated as the oral morphine equivalent (OME).
resultsTwenty patients with cancer pain (aged 64.4 ± 10.3; 9 women) were examined. In the majority of patients, the pain was classified as nociceptive. The mean pain reduction achieved by matrix therapy was 30%, under stable daily controlled-release opioid doses between 177 and 184 mg/day (OME). Seventeen patients (85%) were responders, defined by a pain reduction of at least 30%, while four responders experienced a pain reduction of over 50%. The only side effect was short-term erythema.
conclusionFindings are consistent with the concept of synaptic long-term depression in cancer pain induced after conditioning LFS. Despite the short, but well-tolerated, treatment duration of 2 × 5 min/day, effects persisted throughout the 3-day follow-up. SIGNIFICANCE: Cutaneous neuromodulation using LFS via a matrix electrode has been shown to be a safe intervention for effectively reducing cancer pain in palliative care patients.
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.