Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30667597›Full record

Trial reportInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2019

Microcurrent technology for rapid relief of sinus pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.

Ximena A Maul, Nicole A Borchard, Peter H Hwang, Jayakar V Nayak

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ximena A MaulDivision of Rhinology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Nicole A BorchardDivision of Rhinology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Peter H HwangDivision of Rhinology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Jayakar V NayakDivision of Rhinology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Transcutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain ManagementParanasal Sinus Diseaseschronic rhinosinusitisCRSfacial painmicrocurrentrhinologic facial painsinus paintranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30667597
PMCPMC6590214
OpenAlexW2911798936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.