ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Scrambler Therapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Why the Evidence Base Has Not Converged, and What Standardization Would Require.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
Scrambler therapy (ST) is a non-invasive transcutaneous electroanalgesic technique proposed to deliver synthetic "non-pain" information rather than conventional gate-control stimulation. Despite two decades of favorable clinical signals and few reported serious harms, guideline endorsement remains limited and quantitative syntheses diverge. This narrative review examines why the ST evidence base has not converged and what standardization would require. We identify six recurrent structural problems: an unresolved sham-control paradox, operator dependence, device heterogeneity, an unresolved medication interaction, outcome timing, and post hoc attribution of negative results to protocol deviation. A Korean national health technology reassessment independently reproduced comparator-dependent effect estimates and very low certainty. Public Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) price disclosure records further show that institutions reporting the relevant administrative item increased from 189 in 2021 to 871 in 2026, while the public record cannot identify the device used. As preliminary proposals rather than validated standards, we offer a 22-item reporting set, a conceptual phenotype-stratified dismantling trial, and a prospective registry model. We argue that intervention definition, delivery fidelity, and trial architecture limit the interpretability of the evidence and should be standardized before additional large confirmatory trials; standardization would make results interpretable, not predetermine their direction.
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.