Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Comparative efficacy of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in upper trapezius myofascial pain syndrome.
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind study, the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on pain intensity, functional status, and tissue elasticity were evaluated in patients with upper trapezius myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). Materials and methods: A total of 75 female patients were randomly allocated to three groups: rPMS, TENS, and sham rPMS. All participants were provided with an exercise program consisting of cervical range-of-motion (ROM), stretching, and strengthening exercises. Outcome measures included pain intensity assessed using the visual analog scale, pressure pain threshold (PPT), the Neck Disability Index, cervical ROM, SF-36 subscale scores, and ultrasound shear-wave elastography. All data were collected and compared before treatment, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. Results: Both rPMS and TENS significantly reduced pain intensity, increased PPT, and improved functional outcomes compared with the sham rPMS group. However, rPMS was associated with a greater increase in PPT compared with TENS (p = 0.013). A significant improvement in ROM was observed across all three groups for all neck positions, except for extension in the sham rPMS group. The rPMS group showed significant improvements in four SF-36 subscales compared with the sham rPMS group, whereas the TENS group showed no significant differences. Furthermore, improvements in physical functioning (p = 0.011) and mental health (p = 0.007) scores were significantly greater in the rPMS group than in the TENS group. A significant increase in muscle elasticity was observed only in the TENS group; no significant change was observed in the rPMS or sham rPMS groups. Conclusion: The findings may suggest that rPMS may be a promising noninvasive modality for the management of MPS. It may be used to reduce pain and improve functional outcomes in patients with MPS. Elastography findings may indicate that neurophysiological mechanisms contribute substantially to pain and dysfunction; however, mechanical stiffness cannot be excluded as a contributing factor. Longer follow-up studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of rPMS treatment protocols.
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.