ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Interventions to mitigate pain and reduce skin impedance during neuromuscular electrical stimulation.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. 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
Objective: High skin-electrode impedance limits neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) by increasing discomfort and impairing efficacy. This study compared the effects of mechanical exfoliation and gel pad (hydrogel) application on skin impedance, NMES current intensity, and pain perception. Methods: In a within-subject design, 49 healthy participants (28 males, 21 females) received NMES on both calves with randomized interventions (dry electrode, gel pad, exfoliation, combined). Impedance, NMES current intensity and pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale, NPRS, 0-10 (no-maximum pain)) at plantar flexion (PF) were recorded. Results: Gel pads produced the largest impedance reduction (∼10 kΩ) in participants reaching PF at lower intensities (PF range: 5-20 mA). All interventions significantly reduced impedance (∼1.5 kΩ) and current intensity (∼1 mA) at PF versus dry electrodes (p < 0.001). Gel pads, alone or combined with exfoliation, reduced pain by ∼ 1 NPRS point (p < 0.001), while exfoliation alone had no effect. Over 20% of participants reported persistent pain (NPRS ≥ 4) despite interventions. Higher impedance was significantly associated with lower physical activity level. Conclusion: Gel pads effectively reduced both impedance and pain during NMES, while exfoliation reduced impedance without affecting pain. Significance: Hydrogel pads improve NMES tolerability, yet persistent discomfort warrants improved skin-electrode interfaces.
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.