Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33376417›Full record

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.

Genji Abe, Hideki Oyama, Zhenyi Liao, Keita Honda, Kenji Yashima, Akihiko Asao, Shin-Ichi Izumi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Genji Abe *Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Hideki Oyama *Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6520-9150
Zhenyi LiaoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Keita HondaDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Kenji YashimaIFG Corporation, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9282-3738
Akihiko AsaoDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan.
Shin-Ichi IzumiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Tohoku University · JPNiigata University of Health and Welfare · JPTohoku Bunka Gakuen University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

discomfortintegrated range of wrist movementpainperipheral electrical stimulationperipheral magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID33376417
PMCPMC7755354
OpenAlexW3111424639

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.