Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40108770›Full record

ArticleThe Korean journal of pain2025

Effectiveness of intramuscular electrical stimulation using conventional and inverse electrode placement methods on pressure pain threshold and electromyographic activity of the upper trapezius muscle with myofascial trigger points: a randomized clinical trial.

Sukumar Shanmugam, Fabio Vieira Dos Anjos, Arthur de Sá Ferreira, Ramprasad Muthukrishnan, Praveen Kumar Kandakurti, Satheeskumar Durairaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Korean journal of pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation on Multifidus Muscle Function in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sukumar ShanmugamDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-366X
Fabio Vieira Dos AnjosPostgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Centro Universitário Augusto Motta (UNISUAM), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3966-2509
Arthur de Sá FerreiraPostgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Centro Universitário Augusto Motta (UNISUAM), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-2002
Ramprasad MuthukrishnanDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-5943
Praveen Kumar KandakurtiDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2669-4488
Satheeskumar DurairajDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6962-8168

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study's aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56-3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75-3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89-1.71 kg/cm Conclusions: Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationElectromyographyMusclesNeck PainPain MeasurementPain ThresholdShoulder PainSkeletalTrigger Points

Identifiers

PMID40108770
PMCPMC11965987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.