ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
A transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device for the relief of neuropathic pain in NMOSD: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.
Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04614454 (High Frequency Impulse Therapy for Neuropathic Pain in NMOSD), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
High Frequency Impulse Therapy for Neuropathic Pain in NMOSD
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Background: Individuals with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) often suffer from severe, disabling, and treatment-refractory neuropathic pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapy is a non-invasive, pain-modifying device. Objective: To determine whether TENS therapy is safe, tolerable, and effective for neuropathic pain in patients with NMOSD. Methods: We conducted a four-week, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, remote trial of TENS in patients with NMOSD who have neuropathic pain, followed by a 12-week open-label extension period. The difference in the Numeric Rating Scale current pain scores between 0 weeks and 4 weeks was the primary outcome measure. Results: Forty-six patients (23 per arm) were enrolled in this trial, of which 40 were included in the primary analysis (four in the intervention arm and two in the sham arm withdrew prior to assessment of the primary outcome). Both the sham and intervention arms demonstrated significant decreases in average pain, worst pain, and current pain rating between baseline and 4 weeks, but there was no significant difference between the two arms. Conclusions: In conclusion, there was no demonstrated benefit of TENS over sham TENS treatment, however, both arms demonstrated significant decreases in reported pain between baseline and 4 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614454.
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.