Trial reportPain management2025
Effect of dual direct and alternating currents on pain induced by blood sampling and intramuscular injection processes.
Trial report in Pain management, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigates the effects of cathodal, anodal, and intermittent electrical stimulation on pain intensity associated with arterial blood sampling, venous blood sampling, and intramuscular injection.
methodsIn a triple-blind clinical trial, 160 patients requiring arterial, venous blood sampling, and intramuscular injection were randomly divided into four groups. Three intervention groups received 5 mA anodal, cathodal direct, or alternating currents during the procedure, while the control group received only a topical eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) immediately after the procedure, while procedure duration, number of attempts, and heart rate changes were recorded as secondary outcome.
resultsAll forms of electrical stimulation significantly reduced procedural pain compared to EMLA. Cathodal direct current demonstrated the greatest analgesic effect, with mean VAS score reductions of 2-3 points across all procedures. The time required for arterial blood sampling in the cathodal group was significantly less than with EMLA, while no difference was observed in the procedure time and frequency of attempts in other processes. Furthermore, electrical stimulation groups, particularly the cathodal mode, exhibited lower post-procedure heart rates, suggesting attenuated physiological stress responses.
conclusionWe found that applying electric currents during the procedure reduces the pain of blood sampling or injections. The greatest analgesia was observed with cathodal direct current stimulation compared to other groups. CLINICAL
trial registrationDate of registration: 27 January 2024. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: IRCT20240123060780N1. URL: https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/75119.
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.