Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38419716›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024

Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in patients with burning mouth syndrome: a randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study.

Annalena Palmer, Till Hamann, Jan Liese, Britta Müller, Peter Kropp, Tim P Jürgens, Florian Rimmele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Annalena PalmerDepartment of Neurology, Headache Centre North-East, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Till HamannDepartment of Neurology, Headache Centre North-East, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Jan LieseDepartment of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Britta MüllerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Peter KroppInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Tim P JürgensDepartment of Neurology, Headache Centre North-East, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Florian RimmeleDepartment of Neurology, Headache Centre North-East, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
University of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by a burning sensation in the oral mucous membranes. The etiology and pathophysiology of BMS is largely unexplained. To date, there is no evidence-based treatment strategy for BMS. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) represents a non-invasive treatment option with a low side effect profile that is approved for the treatment of pain, depression, anxiety disorder and insomnia. It has shown efficacy in studies for chronic pain such as fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of CES in combination with local transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as an adjunct therapy in patients with BMS compared to sham stimulation. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study enrolled 22 patients, aged 18 years and over, with the diagnosis of BMS meeting the ICHD-3 criteria from August 2020 to June 2021. The study duration was 4 weeks (28 days) per participant. After randomization, the active group participants ( Results: The linear regression showed that the period of stimulation significantly predicted decrease in the intensity of pain in the active group [ Conclusion: Although CES is an easily applicable and safe therapeutic option for chronic facial pain, active stimulation was not superior to sham stimulation. Among other reasons, this could be due to the short double-blinded treatment period, duration of the daily stimulation session or the small sample size.

Indexed as

burning mouth syndrome (BMS)chronic paincranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES)facial painGlossodyniaheadacheneuropathic paintranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

Identifiers

PMID38419716
PMCPMC10900232
OpenAlexW4391821640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.