Trial reportPloS one2026
Comparison of two repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation protocols for upper trapezius myofascial pain syndrome: A randomized trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
backgroundUpper trapezius myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common contributor to chronic neck pain and functional limitations. Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) has emerged as a non-invasive neuromodulatory intervention; however, the optimal stimulation duration remains uncertain. Clarifying duration-dependent effects is important for informing parameter standardization in rehabilitation practice.
methodsThis single-centre, assessor-blinded randomized trial enrolled adults aged 18-55 years with chronic (≥ 3 months) upper trapezius MPS and baseline Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores ≥ 4. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks to receive either a 15-minute or 10-minute rPMS protocol once weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to standardized stretching exercises. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the VAS. Secondary outcomes included Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Assessments were conducted at baseline, week 2, and week 4 by a blinded assessor. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle using linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) with fixed effects for group, time (baseline, week 2, week 4), and the group-by-time interaction.
resultsOf 83 individuals screened, 66 were randomized (33 per group) and included in the ITT analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. LMMs demonstrated significant improvements over time in VAS, PPT, and NDI (all p < 0.001), with no significant group-by-time interactions. At the prespecified primary endpoint (week 4), VAS decreased from baseline by 4.87 points in Protocol A and 5.02 points in Protocol B. Across both groups, PPT increased by 2.51 kg/cm² and NDI decreased by 9.15 points. The adjusted between-group difference in VAS at week 4 was -0.27 (95% CI -0.95-0.40; p = 0.43), indicating no significant difference between protocols. Similarly, no significant between-group differences were observed for PPT (0.17, 95% CI -0.70-1.03; p = 0.71) or NDI (-0.64, 95% CI -3.29-2.02; p = 0.64).
conclusionsBoth treatment durations were associated with significant short-term improvements in pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and neck-related disability. No significant between-protocol differences were detected within the present sample and follow-up period. These findings suggest that a 10-minute rPMS protocol may be a practical option for clinical rehabilitation settings.
trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (Ref: TCTR20250929011; https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20250929011).
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.