Trial reportJournal of pain research2024
Effectiveness of Hybrid Form Impulse Therapy (HFIT) Compared to Traditional Transcutaneous Electronic Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in Patients with Chronic Low Back and Knee Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of pain research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Physical therapy (PT) and conservative care are recommended first-line treatments for musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. While essential to high-quality care, these solutions often do not provide immediate or sufficient pain relief. Traditional transcutaneous electronic nerve stimulation (TENS) devices are often recommended; however, there is mixed evidence behind their effectiveness. A novel approach called hybrid form impulse therapy (HFIT) incorporates a priming pulse with a traditional TENS pulse width and frequency. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFIT versus traditional TENS versus usual care among members of a digital MSK program. Patients and Methods: A three-arm RCT comparing HFIT versus TENS versus usual care was conducted. A total of 325 people with chronic back or knee pain who were members of a digital MSK program consisting of PT-guided exercise therapy, education, and coaching were randomized. Outcomes including pain, function, anxiety, and depression were examined at 1, 2, and 4 weeks (primary endpoint). Engagement was measured through exercise therapy (ET) sessions completed. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic generalized estimating equations were conducted. Results: Adjusted per-protocol results at 4 weeks showed significantly lower odds of achieving pain improvement for both TENS (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.92]) and usual care (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.72]) groups, compared to HFIT group. Both HFIT and usual care users had significantly higher engagement than the TENS users (p=0.026 and p=0.002, respectively). No adverse events were reported throughout the study. Conclusion: More participants of a digital MSK program who were randomized to the HFIT group experienced meaningful pain improvement at 4 weeks than participants who used TENS and usual care. HFIT can be an effective, non-pharmaceutical solution for relief as a complement to first-line treatments for patients with chronic back and knee pain.
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.