Trial reportScientific reports2026
Comparison of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential therapy for salivary stimulation in postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
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
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and Interferential Therapy (IFT) to enhance the salivary flow rate in post-menopausal women with oral dryness. This is a randomized pilot study design where the samples were calculated based on convenience sampling method and 15 post-menopausal women aged 45 to 70 were randomly assigned to two parallel groups and Group A received TENS therapy andGroup B received IFT and the salivary flow rate of both unstimulated and stimulated saliva was measured pre and post treatment. Statistical tests including Paired t-test, independent t-test, and two-way ANOVA were carried out which reveals that both TENS and IFT are significantly effective in salivary stimulation in post-menopausal women, however only stimulated salivary flow showed a statistically significant difference between groups, with greater values in the IFT group. The present randomized pilot study demonstrated Interferential therapy's versatility and depth of stimulation, with consistent findings of improved comfort, function, and salivation, suggesting a potential advantage of IFT in stimulated salivary flow; however, because the study was a pilot, results should be interpreted cautiously.
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.