ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2016
Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent of 1-8 Hz Increases the Number of Human Dermal Fibroblasts.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Data Driven Review of In Vitro Electrical and Mechanical Stimulation for Post-Acute Phase Wound Healing.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- [Electrical stimulation based on triboelectric nanogenerator promotes osteogenesis of MC3T3-E1 cells on titanium surfaces].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Article
- A Case of a Pressure Injury Where Electrical Stimulation Led to Team Cohesion and Enhanced Healing.Cureus · 2025Article
- Investigating the therapeutic efficacy of microcurrent therapy: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2025Review
- Wound management materials and technologies from bench to bedside and beyond.Nature reviews. Materials · 2024Article
- Pulsed electrical stimulation and amino acid derivatives promote collagen gene expression in human dermal fibroblasts.Cytotechnology · 2024Article
- Electrical stimulation facilitates NADPH production in pentose phosphate pathway and exerts an anti-inflammatory effect in macrophages.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Association between Patients' Body Mass Index and the Effect of Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation on Pressure Injury Healing.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Low-frequency Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation Therapy in Undermining Pressure Injury: A Double-blind Crossover-controlled Study.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
- Microfluidic Chip with Low Constant-Current Stimulation (LCCS) Platform: Human Nucleus Pulposus Degeneration In Vitro Model for Symptomatic Intervertebral Disc.Micromachines · 2021Article
- Micro-Current Stimulation Has Potential Effects of Hair Growth-Promotion on Human Hair Follicle-Derived Papilla Cells and Animal Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Effects of pulsed electrical stimulation on growth factor gene expression and proliferation in human dermal fibroblasts.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2021Article
- Monophasic Pulsed Current Stimulation of Duty Cycle 10% Promotes Differentiation of Human Dermal Fibroblasts into Myofibroblasts.Physical therapy research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePressure injuries seriously impact the quality of life of patients and increase public and private healthcare costs. Electrical stimulation therapy is recommended for wound contraction, and some clinical studies have shown that the application of a monophasic pulsed microcurrent can help to reduce the treatment period. However, the optimal stimulus conditions are unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different frequencies of monophasic pulsed microcurrent stimulation on the number and viability of human dermal fibroblasts.
methodsHuman dermal fibroblasts were electrically stimulated in vitro (intensity: 200 μA; frequency: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 Hz; duty factor: 50%) for 1 h three times every 24 h. Controls were unstimulated. Cell numbers and cell viability were assessed after each electrical stimulation session.
resultsIn the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-Hz groups, cell numbers were significantly higher than those in the control group, whereas electrical stimulation at 64 Hz resulted in a decrease in cell numbers at 24 h after the third treatment (p < 0.05). Cell viability was high in both the control and low-frequency stimulation groups, with no significant differences between groups.
conclusionApplication of 1-8 Hz monophasic pulsed microcurrent stimulation increased the number of human dermal fibroblasts in vitro, and is proposed as the optimal condition for accelerating the healing of pressure injuries.
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.