Trial reportTrials2022
Pulsed electromagnetic fields for post-appendicectomy pain management: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) in postoperative pain management, due to the inconsistent findings so far, remains unclear. We extended the evaluation of PEMF on postoperative pain and intravenous (IV) analgesic use to a group of post-appendicectomy Asian patients.
methodsThis is a double-blinded, randomized trial. Adults with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis were enrolled. Patients were allocated randomly to receive an active-PEMF device or an inactive device after the surgery in addition to the standard postoperative pain management. The primary outcome measure was the 12-h cumulative postoperative pain intensity measured at four different time points using the visual analogue scale. The secondary outcome measure was the total amount of IV fentanyl used (in mg) via PCA over the first 12 postoperative hours. The primary analysis in this trial compared the two study groups for the reported cumulative pain score (both at rest and on movement) and the cumulative amount of IV fentanyl uses over the first 12 postoperative hours using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Analyses were performed based on the intention-to-treat principal. Multiple imputation was used to handle the missing data assuming that the data were missing at random.
findingsOne hundred eighteen subjects were randomized; 58 were allocated to the active-PEMF group and 60 to the inactive control group. Pooled mean pain score of both intervention groups by time point declined in a similar fashion over the course of 12 postoperative hours. The 12-h cumulative postoperative pain score at rest and on movement did not differ significantly after the procedure. (W = 1832.5 ~ 1933.0, p-value 0.6192 ~ 0.2985 for resting pain score comparison; W = 1737.0 ~ 1804.5, p-value 0.9892 ~ 0.7296 for movement pain score comparison). For the secondary outcome measure of 12-h total fentanyl use, a comparison between the PEMF vs. placebo arm also revealed no statistically significant difference across all the 20 imputed datasets (W = 1676.5 ~ 1859.0, p-value 0.7344 ~ 0.5234). DISCUSSION: PEMF was not superior to placebo as an adjunct pain management for up to 12 h post-appendicectomy. Previously reported effect of PEMF on postoperative pain intensity and analgesia uses in similar surgical settings cannot be verified.
trial registrationNational Medical Research Register Malaysia (NMRR-15-670-25,805) and Thai Clinical Trials Registry (retrospectively registered on November 01, 2019, Study ID-TCTR20191102002).
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.