ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Difference in Pain and Discomfort of Comparable Wrist Movements Induced by Magnetic or Electrical Stimulation for Peripheral Nerves in the Dorsal Forearm.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recovery of functional ambulation through stepwise rehabilitation treatment in a patient with encephalomyeloradiculoneuropathy: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2026Article
- Applications of Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation in Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Hemodynamics Compared to Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation.Physical therapy research · 2026Article
- Effect of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for patients with chronic stroke: a case report using an AB design.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of external diaphragm pacing combined with repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerve on respiratory function in stroke patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancements in stimulation therapies for peripheral nerve regeneration.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2024Review
- Effect of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation of the common fibular nerve on the soleus muscle Hoffmann reflex.Journal of physical therapy science · 2024Article
- A study of flex miniaturized coils for focal nerve magnetic stimulation.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Immediate Reduction in Spasticity of Ankle Plantar Flexors in a Stroke Patient after Treatment with a Spinning Permanent Magnet Device.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Advances in biotechnology and clinical therapy in the field of peripheral nerve regeneration based on magnetism.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- The Facial Skin Blood Flow Change of Stroke Patients with Facial Paralysis after Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation: A Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation through Hand Splint Materials on Induced Movement and Corticospinal Excitability in Healthy Participants.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Role of Cervical Spinal Magnetic Stimulation in Improving Posture and Functional Ambulation of Patients with Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.Rehabilitation research and practice · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBoth repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and transcutaneous electrical current stimulation (TES) could elicit the limb movements; it is still unclear how subjective sensation is changed according to the amount of limb movements. We investigated the pain and discomfort induced by newly developed rPMS and TES of peripheral nerves in the dorsal forearm.
methodsThe subjects were 12 healthy adults. The stimulus site was the right dorsal forearm; thus, when stimulated, wrist dorsiflexion was induced. The rPMS was delivered by the new stimulator, Pathleader at 10 stimulus intensity levels, and TES intensity was in 1-mA increments. The duration of each stimulation was 2 s. The analysis parameters were subjective pain and discomfort, measured by a numerical rating scale. The rating scale at corresponding levels of integrated range of movement (iROM) induced by rPMS or TES was compared. The subjective values were analyzed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA with the stimulus conditions (rPMS, TES) and the seven levels of iROM (20-140 ºs).
resultsIn the rPMS experiments, stimuli were administered to all subjects at all stimulus intensities. In the TES experiments, none of the subjects dropped out between 1 and 16 mA, but there were dropouts at each of the intensities as follows: 1 subject at 17 mA, 20 mA, 22 mA, 23 mA, 27 mA, 29 mA and 2 subjects at 21 mA, 24 mA, 26 mA. The main effects of the stimulus conditions and iROM were significant for pain and discomfort. Post hoc analysis demonstrated that pain and discomfort in rPMS were significantly lower compared to TES when the iROM was above 60 ºs and 80 ºs, respectively.
conclusionNew rPMS stimulator, Pathleader, caused less pain and discomfort than TES, but this was only evident when comparatively large joint movements occurred.
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.