ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
10 kHz spinal cord stimulation vs. traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of diabetes peripheral neuropathic pain: study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), affecting ~50% of diabetes patients, imposes major burdens on quality of life and healthcare systems, while current therapies including pharmacotherapy and conventional spinal cord stimulation remain limited by insufficient efficacy and adverse effects. Our study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) compared to traditional low-frequency SCS (T-SCS) in alleviating DPNP. Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial will enroll 100 participants with DPNP. Patients aged 18-80 with chronic (≥6-month) lower limb pain will be randomly assigned to HF-SCS (10 kHz) vs. T-SCS (40-60 Hz). The primary outcome is the treatment efficacy rate, defined as ≥50% reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) scores at 3 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes include improvements in quality of life (Short Form 12), sleep quality (Athens Insomnia Scale), psychological status (Beck Depression Inventory), neuropathy severity (Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument), and microcirculatory parameters assessed via infrared thermography. Safety evaluations encompass adverse events, laboratory tests, and imaging findings. Discussion: This study seeks to provide robust evidence on the superiority of HF-SCS in pain relief, functional improvement, and microcirculatory benefits, potentially establishing it as a preferred neuromodulation strategy for DPNP. Findings may advance clinical practice by addressing unmet needs in chronic pain management through targeted, mechanism-driven interventions. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/indexEN.html, identifier: ChiCTR2300078291.
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.