Trial reportScientific reports2026
Intramuscular electrical stimulation added to home exercise for myofascial shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
To determine whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) added to a standardized home-exercise program is more effective than home exercise alone for short-duration myofascial shoulder pain, and to assess effects on disability, pressure pain threshold, tissue perfusion, muscle mechanical properties, and shoulder abductor strength. In this single-centre, assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 50 adults with myofascial shoulder pain were allocated 1:1 to home exercise plus weekly IMES for 6 weeks or home exercise alone. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome was pain intensity (NRS). Secondary outcomes were DASH, pressure pain threshold, tissue perfusion, muscle tone, stiffness, and maximum voluntary contraction. IMES produced greater improvement in pain than exercise alone at post-treatment (ΔΔ -2.50 NRS points, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.94; p < 0.001; g=-3.25) and follow-up (ΔΔ -2.12, 95% CI -2.63 to -1.60; p < 0.001; g=-2.75). Disability also improved more with IMES (DASH: ΔΔ -16.28 and -21.97 points, both p < 0.001). IMES additionally improved pressure pain threshold, tissue perfusion, muscle tone, and stiffness (all p < 0.001), but not shoulder abductor strength (interaction p = 0.106). An exploratory pooled correlation was observed between increased perfusion and greater pain reduction (r=-0.87, p < 0.001), but this association should be interpreted cautiously. Minor adverse events occurred only in the IMES group. IMES was associated with short-term improvement in pain, disability, and physiological measures when added to home exercise in myofascial shoulder pain, but these findings require cautious interpretation and further confirmation because the study lacked a sham comparator, participant blinding was not feasible, and subjective outcomes may have been influenced by non-specific treatment effects.Trial registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry under trial number ISRCTN66866842 in 25/03/2025.
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.