ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Recovery Time of Electrical Sensory, Motor, and Pain Thresholds: A Pilot Study Towards Standardization of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Healthy Population.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Reliability of Electrical Threshold Testing for Assessing Sensory, Motor and Pain Thresholds: An Exploratory Study in Active Subjects.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of Non-Invasive Electrical Detection and Pain Thresholds Using PainVisionJournal of pain research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesElectrical threshold testing (ETT) offers a promising method for assessing somatosensory function. Despite its growing use, fundamental aspects such as the physiological recovery time required between repeated threshold measurements remain poorly understood. This gap is critical when evaluating sensory, motor, or pain thresholds (EST, EMT, EPT) in pre-post designs or rapid intra-session protocols. The aim is to investigate the short-term recovery dynamics of electrical thresholds following electrical threshold testing, and to determine the minimum interval required for values to return to a stable baseline.
methodsIn this pilot, repeated-measures study, 10 healthy adults (20 upper limbs) underwent three progressive stimulation trials (sensory, motor, and pain). Electrical thresholds were assessed at fixed recovery intervals (0-120 s), with duplicate measurements at each time point. Stability was defined as the absence of significant differences between repeated measures.
resultsEST stabilized rapidly after sensory or motor stimulation, showing no significant differences beyond 0 and 15 s, respectively. Within pain stimulation, EST recovered at 60 s. EMT showed immediate recovery with motor stimulation and required longer recovery with pain stimulation, with stabilization observed at 90 s. EPT exhibited the highest variability, with the smallest time-dependent differences observed immediately after the first assessment.
conclusionRecovery time after electrical stimulation varies by threshold type and intensity of the stimuli. EST and EMT can be reliably reassessed immediately after sensory and motor stimulation, respectively. However, when stimulation reaches EPT level, EST requires 60 s to recover and EMT needs 90 s. EPT demonstrates higher variability, indicating the need for further investigation. These findings support the implementation of standardized recovery intervals in ETT and underscore the importance of interpreting EPT results with caution during rapid assessments.
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.