Trial reportAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
Scrambler therapy for treatment of poststroke pain.
Trial report in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveStrokes involving sensory pathways can result in contralesional pain syndromes often refractory to pharmacologic interventions. Scrambler therapy (ST) is a noninvasive electroanalgesia device used to treat pain caused by peripheral neuropathy; however, data are scarce regarding its use in conditions secondary to central nervous system pathology. We evaluate the efficacy of ST to treat poststroke pain.
methodsTwenty patients with a history of prior stroke resulting in contralesional pain were randomized to receive ST or Sham as an adjunct to their stable medication regimen. Participants underwent 5 consecutive daily 40-min sessions. The study was blinded to patient and assessor. Pain scores (0-10) were recorded at baseline, pre- and postsession, and 4 weeks after final treatment. Student's t-tests compared differences in the mean change in pain score between groups immediately post-treatment #5, and at 4-weeks. The chi-squared analysis compared the proportion of patients in each group with >50% pain reduction.
resultsParticipants randomized to ST had a mean change in pain score of -3.73 (SD 2.85) postintervention and -2.57 (SD 2.07) at 4 weeks, while the Sham group had a mean change in score of -0.94 (SD 1.36) and -0.25 (SD 0.84) (p between groups = 0.012, 0.004, respectively). Significantly more participants treated with ST reported a >50% reduction in pain immediately postintervention compared to Sham (70% vs. 10%, p = 0.006), but not at follow-up (30% vs. 10%, p = ns).
interpretationST may effectively decrease poststroke pain compared to Sham. Larger studies are needed to evaluate confounders such as stroke location, time from stroke, and concomitant treatment with medications.
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.