ArticlePain and therapy2025
Efficacy of Rebox Electrotherapy in Pain Management: A Randomized Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Crossover Trial.
Article in Pain and therapy, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRebox therapy is a form of noninvasive transcutaneous electrotherapy, which delivers microcurrent kilohertz-frequency pulses in multiple points over the target area. Despite decades of use in pain management, clinical evidence supporting Rebox remains inconclusive, with a lack of rigorous sham-controlled trials. This study aimed to evaluate its analgesic effect in a single-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled crossover trial.
methodsThe study included consecutive patients with non-cancer nociceptive pain with average pain intensity ≥ 4 on a numerical rating scale (NRS), and pain duration of 2-12 weeks (de novo or acutely exacerbated chronic pain). Patients were randomized (1:1) into two arms based on the sequence of stimulation periods. Each period consisted of eight sessions of either Rebox or sham treatment, administered every other working day, with a 1-week washout period. The primary outcome was the difference in the reduction of pain intensity (average and worst pain in the last 24 h) following active versus sham stimulation.
resultsSeventy-one patients completed the study, with musculoskeletal back pain being the most common indication (n = 60). Compared to the sham, Rebox significantly reduced both average pain (NRS difference: 2.2, 95% CI 0.8-3.6, Cohen's d = 0.75, p = 0.002) and worst pain (NRS difference: 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-3.5, Cohen's d = 0.91, p < 0.001). A significant placebo analgesic effect was observed only in the sham-first arm. The treatment was well tolerated, with only minor and transient side effects.
conclusionRebox demonstrated a significant analgesic effect compared to the sham. The treatment was safe and well tolerated. These findings support integrating Rebox into clinical pain management, warranting further investigation in larger trials.
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.