Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41168341›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Test-retest reliability of intra-epidermal electrically evoked potentials in comparison with other modalities and across stimulation intensities.

Sara U Júlio, Pascale Rüegge, Miriam Schneuwly, Kevin Hong, Michèle Hubli, Martin Schubert

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sara U JúlioSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. sara.uldryjulio@balgrist.ch.
Pascale RüeggeSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Miriam SchneuwlySpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kevin HongSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michèle HubliSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin SchubertSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich [K-83001-02-01]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intra-epidermal electrically evoked potentials (IEEPs) might represent a promising method for an improved characterization of certain spinal pathologies. Before successful clinical implementation, investigating IEEPs reliability is a prerequisite. This study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of IEEPs compared to contact heat (CHEPs) and pinprick (PEPs) evoked potentials (Experiment 1) and across different intra-epidermal electrical stimulation (IES) intensities (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 included 26 participants (12f, 25.3 ± 4.6years) and assessed pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs) following contact heat (35-60 °C), pinprick (256 mN), and IES (2 × electrical detection threshold, EDT) to the volar forearm. Experiment 2 included 30 participants (20f, 27.7 ± 3.7years) and assessed IEEPs at four IES intensities (1.5 ×, 2 ×, 4 × EDT, and 0.5 mA). Both experiments assessed test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analyses for N-latencies, NP-amplitudes, and pain ratings. While IEEPs at 2 × EDT in Experiment 1 showed "excellent" reliability for NP-amplitude, comparable to CHEPs and PEPs, reliability for N-latency and pain ratings ranged from "poor" to "fair". This reliability of IEEP N-latencies and pain ratings improved to "good" and "excellent" by applying higher intensities of IES such as 4 × EDT and 0.5 mA. Given the high reliability of IEEPs at 4 × EDT and 0.5 mA, these intensities may be recommendable for clinical application.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationEpidermisEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryAdultFemaleHumansMalePainPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultIntra-epidermal electrically evoked potentialsMulti-modal evoked potentialsNeurophysiologyPain-related evoked potentialsTest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID41168341
PMCPMC12575711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.