ReviewJournal of pain research2026
A Comprehensive Review of the Clinical Utility and Reliability of a Quantitative Electrical Stimulation Device for Objective Pain Assessment.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Objective pain measurement remains challenging due to pain's subjective nature. This review evaluates the clinical utility, measurement protocols, reliability, and limitations of a quantitative electrical stimulation device used for objective pain perception threshold assessment. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in November 2025 using Web of Science and PubMed databases without date restrictions. Studies involving human subjects that employed the device for quantitative pain perception threshold measurement were included. Data on study design, patient populations, measurement protocols, clinical applications, reliability, and validity were extracted and synthesized. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing healthy volunteers and patients with neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, chronic pain, and genetic pain sensitivity disorders. The device quantified current perception threshold (CPT) and pain equivalent current (PEC) via controlled electrical stimulation, with electrode placement typically on the forearm, upper arm, fingertips, or ulnar flexion. Measurements demonstrated reproducibility and positive correlations with subjective pain scales such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Variability in protocols, sensitivity to patient movement, and limited assessment of slow C-fiber mediated pain were commonly reported challenges. Conclusion: The electrical pain assessment device is a promising objective tool for pain and sensory function assessment that complements subjective measures. Future research should focus on large-scale validation, standardization of protocols, and integration with other physiological markers to enhance clinical applicability and precision in pain management.
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.