ArticleBrain network and modulation
Efficacy of scrambler therapy in chronic neuropathic pain: pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis.
Article in Brain network and modulation. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) affects 7% of the world's population and is challenging to control since existing medications are inadequate and have negative effects. Electro-cutaneous devices, such as Scrambler Therapy (ST), have emerged as a possible option and have shown promising results in multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the long-term efficacy of ST remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ST in CNP reduction over time. We used the data sources including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to September 2023. Five placebo and three routine-care controlled RCTs were selected among the screened abstracts. Two authors independently extracted the data. Data was pooled using a model under the common parameters assumption. The studies were evaluated for methodological quality using the MethodologicAl STandard for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale. The primary outcome measure was pain reduction; pain was converted to a common 0 to 10 scale, and a weighted mean difference of more than 2 points on a 10-point pain scale was considered clinically important. Eight RCTs that evaluated the effect of ST on CNP were included, with a total sample size of 350 participants. None of the participants withdrew in all these trials owing to adverse events or lack of efficacy. There was high-quality evidence that ST reduced pain in the short term, with a mean difference of -3 points. The dose-response meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in pain scores post-treatment, with a peak reduction at day 40. The effect of ST remained below the baseline values for 90 days, although with limited certainty. This study is the first dose-response meta-analysis to assess the duration of efficacy of ST in the treatment of CNP. The results demonstrated a clinically significant and more sustained reduction in pain created by ST compared to conventional treatments. Our findings indicate that ST could be used as a safe and effective alternative for managing CNP.
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.