Trial reportInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2019
Microcurrent technology for rapid relief of sinus pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.
Trial report in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of facial neuromuscular electrical stimulation (fNMES) in psychophysiological research: Practical recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature.Behavior research methods · 2024Guideline
- Effect of Microcurrent Stimulation on Pain, Shoulder Function, and Grip Strength in Early Post-Operative Phase after Rotator Cuff Repair.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Trial
- Microcurrent technology for rapid relief of sinus pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2019Trial
- A meta-analysis of pain intensity changes after placebo interventions in facial pain.Pain reports · 2026Review
- On the nose: nasal neurostimulation as a technology countermeasure for sinonasal congestion in astronauts.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Physiological effects of microcurrent and its application for maximising acute responses and chronic adaptations to exercise.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Review
- Core Concept: The rise of bioelectric medicine sparks interest among researchers, patients, and industry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Prospective trial examining safety and efficacy of microcurrent stimulation for the treatment of sinus pain and congestion.Bioelectronic medicine · 2019Article
- New Medical Device and Therapeutic Approvals in Otolaryngology: State of the Art Review of 2019.OTO openReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation has proven to be effective in alleviating chronic pain from facial myalgias. We evaluated the efficacy of a novel handheld microcurrent-emitting device in short-term, office-based treatment of patients with sinus pain. This device, which is U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared, detects and treats regions corresponding to nerve fibers.
methodsRandomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Seventy-one participants with facial pain attributed to self-reported nasal/sinus disease were recruited from a tertiary rhinologic practice and the surrounding community and randomly assigned to either office-based use of an active (n = 38) or placebo (n = 33) microcurrent emitter. The study device was repetitively applied by each patient to the bilateral periorbital areas for 5 minutes. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain severity was administered before, and 10 minutes after, treatment.
resultsActive microcurrent-treated patients had a reduction in mean pain score from 5.63 pretreatment to 3.97 posttreatment (mean difference, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 2.12). Patients using the sham device also reported sinus pain reductions (mean difference, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.21). However, the active device demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in pain compared to sham (0.75-point difference, p = 0.007). Notably, 23.7% of patients using the active device had a reduction of 3 or more points by VAS compared to 0% of sham device patients (p = 0.003). One minor occurrence of transient facial skin erythema was noted.
conclusionThis trial suggests that treatment of rhinologic facial pain using this noninvasive microcurrent device is safe and effective in providing rapid relief of nasal/sinus pain. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are warranted.
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.