ArticlePloS one2024
Challenges and opportunities in testing sensorimotor processing with tendon vibration and transcranial magnetic stimulation in subacromial impingement syndrome: A case series.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive neurostimulation like muscle tendon vibration (VIB) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can provide valuable insights on mechanisms underlying sensorimotor dysfunctions. However, their feasibility in the context of painful musculoskeletal disorders like shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) remain uncertain.
methodsThe present work used a case series design including 15 participants with SIS, as well as a secondary group-based analysis comparing participants with SIS to 15 healthy counterparts. Proprioceptive processing was tested by VIB-induced kinesthetic illusions of shoulder abduction, and TMS tested corticospinal excitability of the upper trapezius. Detailed individual data were collected, including any technical challenges and feasibility issues encountered.
resultsVIB was in general well-tolerated and elicited a perceptible kinesthetic illusion in 13 participants with SIS and 14 controls. TMS presented with several challenges related to discomfort, fear-related behaviors, technical problems and high motor thresholds, especially in participants with SIS. It was only possible to collect all TMS measures in 5 participants with SIS (for both the painful and non/less-painful sides), in 7 controls on their dominant side and 10 controls on the non-dominant side. The only significant group-based analysis was a lower illusion speed/amplitude on the painful versus non-painful side in persons with SIS (p = 0.035).
conclusionOur study provides preliminary data on challenges encountered with TMS and VIB of trunk/proximal muscle in persons with SIS and healthy counterparts. It might help future studies to better address those challenges beforehand and improve the overall feasibility and impact of neurostimulation tools in musculoskeletal disorders.
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.