ArticlePain and therapy2024
H-Wave
Article in Pain and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- H-WaveMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- H-Wave device stimulation benefits chronic shoulder pain in an observational cohort study of patient-reported outcome measures.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Opioid Stewardship and Gastrointestinal (GI)-Sparing Alternatives in Primary Care Pain Management.Cureus · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic neck pain (cNP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, often being refractory to conventional forms of treatment. Various forms of electrical stimulation have been proposed to decrease pain and improve function. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for treatment of cNP have rarely been published.
methodsAn independent retrospective statistical analysis of PROMs data for users of H-Wave
resultsNeck pain was reduced by 3.13 points (0-10 pain scale), with significant (≥ 20%) relief in 86.6%. Function/activities of daily living (ADL) improved in 96.19%, while improved work performance was reported in 84.76%. Medication use decreased or stopped in 65.42% and sleep improved in 60.39%. Over 95% reported having expectations met or exceeded, service satisfaction, and confidence in device use, while no adverse events were reported. Subgroup analyses found positive benefit associations with longer duration of device use.
conclusionNear-equivalent outcomes were self-reported by cNP HWDS patients as for (previously published) chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients. HWDS provided effective and safe cNP relief, improvements in function and ADL, along with additional benefits including decreased medication use, better sleep, and improved work performance.
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.