Trial reportScientific reports2025
Short-term efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation for essential tremor in a randomized double-blind controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peripheral nerve stimulation for essential tremor: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Essential Tremor and Digital Biomarkers: A Scoping Review Using the TRACE Framework to Map Readiness for Clinical Trials and Routine Practice.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) demonstrates promise for some neurological conditions. However, its effectiveness for essential tremor (ET) requires further research. In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial, we investigated the safety and efficacy of a single, 40-minute PNS session in ET. Eighty-eight participants (age: 63.5 [52.5, 70.3], male: 57.95%) were assigned to active PNS stimulation (n = 45) or sham procedure (n = 43). Efficacy was assessed using accelerometer-measured tremor amplitude (m/s²), clinician-rated tremor severity using the Tremor Research Group Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS), patients' own experience with daily activities using the Bain and Findley Activities of Daily Living scale (BF-ADL), and their perceived improvement based on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I). Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately post-stimulation, and at multiple intervals up to 90 min (extending to 24 h for subjective outcomes). Temporal changes in outcomes over time were evaluated using the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE). The effects of group, time, and their interaction (group*time) on the outcomes were subsequently assessed using GEE. GEE analyses revealed significant group*time interaction for tremor amplitude (B = - 51.61, 95%CI [- 94.60, - 8.62], p = 0.019). However, no significant group*time interactions were observed for TETRAS, BF-ADL, and CGI-I. This study indicated the effect of PNS on reducing ET amplitude. ID: IRCT20161212031362N2.
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.