ArticleBiomedicines2023
Development of a Sham Protocol to Investigate Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Randomised, Sham-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trials.
Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03965299 (Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury to Prevent Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury to Prevent Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity: A Nationwide Randomised, Sham-controlled, Double-blind Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Tibial Nerve Stimulation: Recent Progress and Challenges.Current urology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a promising treatment for neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms. However, the evidence is limited due to a general lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and, also, inconsistency in the sham and blinding conditions. In the context of much-needed RCTs, we aimed to develop a suitable sham-control protocol for a clinical setting to maintain blinding but avoid meaningful stimulation of the tibial nerve. Three potential electrode positions (lateral malleolus/5th metatarsal/plantar calcaneus) and two electrode sizes (diameter: 2.5 cm/3.2 cm) were tested to determine which combination provided the optimal sham configuration for a TTNS approach, based on a visible motor response. Sixteen healthy volunteers underwent sensory and motor assessments for each sham configuration. Eight out of them came back for an extra TTNS visit. Sensory thresholds were present for all sham configurations, with linear regression models revealing a significant effect regarding electrode position (highest at plantar calcaneus) but not size. In addition, motor thresholds varied with the position-lowest for the 5th metatarsal. Only using this position and 3.2 cm electrodes attained a 100% response rate. Compared to TTNS, sensory and motor thresholds were generally higher for the sham configurations; meanwhile, perceived pain was only higher at the lateral malleolus. In conclusion, using the 5th metatarsal position and 3.2 cm electrodes proved to be the most suitable sham configuration. Implemented as a four-electrode setup with standardized procedures, this appears to be a suitable RCT protocol for maintaining blinding and controlling for nonspecific TTNS effects in a clinical setting.
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.