ArticleBioelectronic medicine2024
Comparisons of different electrical stimulation modalities for treating visceral pain in a rodent model of irritable bowel syndrome.
Article in Bioelectronic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Mechanistic Insights and Biomarker-Based Evaluation of Therapeutic Response.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Chinese acupoint therapies in cancer pain management: research advances and future perspectives.Pain management · 2025Review
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different electrical stimulation methods (bilateral electroacupuncture (BEA), unilateral EA (UEA), transcutaneous electrical acustimulation (TEA, stimulation via surface electrodes placed at acupoints), and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS)) on visceral pain in a rodent model of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Ten-day-old male and female pups were treated with 0.2 ml of 0.5% acetic acid (AA) solution. Visceral sensitivity was assessed using an electromyogram (EMG) in response to graded colorectal distension. In the first experiment, bilateral EA at ST36 acupoint was performed with different parameters in male rats to determine the best stimulation parameters. In the second experiment, male rats were randomly assigned into the Sham, BEA, UEA, TEA, and SNS groups to determine the best stimulation method. Lastly, the AA-treated female rats were randomly assigned into the BEA and sham groups to investigate a potential treatment difference between the sexes. Two distinct sets of stimulation parameters were used: Set 1 (100 Hz, 0.5 ms pulse width, 0.1 s ON, 0.4 s OFF, 0.4-3.0 mA current) and Set 2 (25 Hz, 0.5 ms pulse width, 2 s ON, 3 s OFF, 0.4-3.0 mA current).Results (1) The parameter set of 100Hz was found to be most effective in reducing visceral pain. (2) Both acute UEA and TEA effectively relieved visceral pain, whereas acute SNS did not exhibit such an effect. (3) Acute BEA improved visceral pain in both male and female rats.Conclusions These findings suggest that transcutaneous ST36 stimulation is as effective as direct ST36 stimulation and unilateral ST36 stimulation is comparable to bilateral stimulation. Development of a novel therapy using unilateral transcutaneous ST36 stimulation is warranted.
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.