Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38015366›Full record

ArticlePain and therapy2024

Whole-Body Electrostatic Pain Treatment in Adults with Chronic Pain: A Prospective Multicentric Observational Clinical Trial.

Stephan Steinhauser, Michael Thomas Ganter, Vincent Stadelmann, Christoph Karl Hofer, ELES Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04818294 (Prospective, Multi-center, Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04818294 completednot on this map

Prospective, Multi-center, Clinical Trial (Phase IV Study) to Monitor the Efficacy of Treatment by Applying a High Electrostatic Charge to Patients With Chronic Pain, in the Practice of Clinical or Out-patient Pain Treatment Facilities.

TypeobservationalSponsorElosan AGRan2021 to 2022Enrolled192ConditionsChronic PainArmsPain treatment by electrostatic charge to the whole body
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Stephan SteinhauserDivision of Anaesthesia, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. stephan.steinhauser@kws.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-6234-4076
Michael Thomas GanterInstitute of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hirslanden Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.
Vincent StadelmannDepartment of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Switzerland.
Christoph Karl HoferDivision of Anaesthesia, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
ELES Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the treatment of patients with chronic pain, whole-body electrostatic therapy using the Elosan Cabin C1 has been proposed as an adjunctive therapy. So far, data on the use of this cabin are limited. Promising results with a significant reduction in pain scores have been obtained in a small group of patients. However, treatment with Elosan Cabin C1 has not been the subject of evaluation in a larger patient population. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and adverse effects of electrostatic treatment in such a population.

methodsProspective, multi-center, observational clinical trial conducted in daily practice in a large adult ambulatory population with chronic pain. Each patient received eight weekly Elosan C1 treatment sessions for up to 9 weeks. Treatment was added to an established conservative pain management. Pain scores (visual analog scale (VAS) 0-100, primary outcome) and sleep quality (seven-point Likert scale, secondary outcome) were assessed before, during, and at the end of the treatment period; quality of life (SF-12: Physical Component Summary = PCS, Mental Component Summary = MCS; secondary outcome) was assessed before and at the end of the treatment period. Subgroup analyses were performed for sex, age, duration of pain, initial pain location, pain entity, and pain medication at the start of treatment.

resultsA total of 192 patients were enrolled, 143 patients (74.5%) had a complete set of 8 treatment sessions. A reduction in pain scores from 68 ± 14 points to 47 ± 22 points was observed (p < 0.001), 65% of patients (responders) had a reduction of > 15 points. Female patients had a significantly better response than male patients with a higher number of responders (76% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). Patients with a pain history < 1 year had a significantly better response than patients with a pain history > 1 year. The Physical Component Summary (PCS) increased from 36 ± 11 to 41 ± 11 (+ 18%, p < 0.001) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) from 41 ± 7 to 43 ± 7 (+ 6%, p = 0.3). Overall sleep quality improved significantly from 4.6 ± 1.7 to 3.73 ± 1.7 points (p < 0.001), with a higher proportion of responders in the female group (37 vs. 18%; p < 0.034). No serious adverse events were observed during treatment.

conclusionsElectrostatic therapy with Elosan Cabin C1 may be a useful and effective adjunct therapy for patients with chronic pain. The results suggest that female patients and those with a recent history of pain experience the greatest benefit.

trial registrationNCT04818294 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Indexed as

Chronic painElectrostatic therapyElosan Cabin C1Multimodal pain treatmentQuality of lifeSF-12Sleep quality

Identifiers

PMID38015366
PMCPMC10796901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.