Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32869092›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2020

Changes in Experimental Pain Sensitivity from Using Home-Based Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis.

Robert Suchting, Shweta Kapoor, Kenneth B Mathis, Hyochol Ahn

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Individualized Physical Therapy on Pain and Function in Individuals With Chronic Knee Pain: A Pilot Study.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Non-invasive brain stimulation for osteoarthritis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robert SuchtingFaillace Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Shweta KapoorFaillace Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Kenneth B MathisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Hyochol AhnDepartment of Research, Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Self-Administered Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Pain in Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Phase II Randomized Sham-Controlled TrialR15NR018050 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MATHIS, KENNETH B · 2019 to 2020
$618k
NINR NIH HHS R15 NR018050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study examined the effects of home-based remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation on quantitative sensory testing measurements in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Participants were hypothesized to experience improved pain measurements over time.

designOpen-label, single-arm trial.

settingSoutheast Texas between March and November 2018 at a nursing school and participant homes. SUBJECTS: Older adults (aged 50-85 years) with self-reported unilateral or bilateral knee osteoarthritis pain who met eligibility criteria set by the American College of Rheumatology.

methodsThe intervention was applied with a constant current intensity for 20 minutes every weekday for two weeks (10 total sessions). Quantitative measures of pain were collected three times over 10 days (days 1, 5, and 10) and included heat threshold and tolerance, pressure pain threshold, punctate mechanical pain, pain, and conditioned pain modulation. Analyses used nonparametric tests to evaluate differences between day 1 and day 10. Generalized linear mixed models were then used to evaluate change across all three time points for each measure. Bayesian inference was used to provide the posterior probability of longitudinal effects.

resultsNonparametric tests found improvements in seven measures, and longitudinal models supported improvements in 10 measures, with some nonlinear effects.

conclusionsThe home-based, remotely supervised intervention improved quantitative measurements of pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. This study contributes to the growing body of literature supporting home-based noninvasive stimulation interventions.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremHumansMiddle AgedPainPain ThresholdTexasBayesian Statistical InferenceNoninvasive Brain StimulationPain SensitivityRemote SupervisiontDCSTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32869092
PMCPMC8453601
OpenAlexW3082403837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.