Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37751060›Full record

ReviewPain and therapy2023

Do Electrical Stimulation Devices Reduce Pain and Improve Function?-A Comparative Review.

Christian B Allen, Tyler K Williamson, Stephen M Norwood, Ashim Gupta

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pain and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Cold Tissue Temperature Decreases Electrocutaneous Sensory Perception and Discriminability.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. H-WavePain and therapy · 2024
    Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian B Allen *University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine, San Antonio, TX, 78235, USA.
Tyler K Williamson *Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Stephen M NorwoodRetired Orthopaedic Surgeon, Austin, TX, 78738, USA.
Ashim GuptaFuture Biologics, Lawrenceville, GA, 30043, USA. ashim6786@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1224-2755
Regenerative Medicine Institute · MXThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of the Incarnate Word · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple forms of electrical stimulation (ES) potentially offer widely varying clinical benefits. Diminished function commonly associated with acute and chronic pain lessens productivity and increases medical costs. This review aims to compare the relative effects of various forms of ES on functional and pain outcomes.

methodsA comprehensive literature search focused on studies of commonly marketed forms of ES used for treatment of pain and improvement of function. Peer-reviewed manuscripts were categorized as "Important" (systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, observational cohort study) and "Minor" (retrospective case series, case report, opinion review) for each identified form of ES. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Varying forms of ES have markedly different technical parameters, applications, and indications, based on clinically meaningful impact on pain perception, function improvement, and medication reduction. Despite being around for decades, there is limited quality evidence for most forms of ES, although there are several notable exceptions for treatment of specific indications. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has well-demonstrated beneficial effects for rehabilitation of selective spinal cord injured (SCI), post-stroke, and debilitated inpatients. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has similarly shown effectiveness in rehabilitation of some stroke, SCI, and foot drop outpatients. H-Wave

conclusionTen of 13 reviewed forms of ES have only limited quality evidence for clinically significant reduction of pain or improvement of function across different patient populations. NMES and FES have reasonably demonstrated effectiveness, albeit for specific clinical rehabilitation indications. HWDS was associated with the most clinically significant outcomes, in terms of functional improvement combined with reduction of pain and medication use. More rigorous long-term clinical trials are needed to further validate appropriate use and specific indications for most forms of ES. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

Chronic painEffectivenessElectrical stimulationFunctionFunctional electrical stimulationH-Wave®H-Wave device stimulationNeuromuscular electrical stimulationTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37751060
PMCPMC10616008
OpenAlexW4387033473

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.