Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359387›Full record

Trial reportJournal of pain research2024

Safety and Efficacy of Axon Therapy (SEAT Study), Utilizing Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain.

Leonardo Kapural, Janus Patel, Jason Charles Rosenberg, Sean Li, Kasra Amirdelfan, Marshall Bedder

Registry-linked trialAbstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07705490 (Clinical and Electrophysiological Evaluation of the Effect of High-Intensity Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation in Traumatic Peripheral Nerve Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07705490 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Electrophysiological Evaluation of the Effect of High-Intensity Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation in Traumatic Peripheral Nerve Injury: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research HospitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsPeripheral Nerve Injuries, Traumatic Peripheral Nerve Injury, Neuropathic Pain, Peripheral Nerve Injuries, TraumaticArmsHigh-Intensity Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation, Sham Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation, Therapeutic Exercise Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Leonardo KapuralCarolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2718-5837
Janus PatelAtrium Health, Wake Forest Baptist Pain Center-Premier, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
Jason Charles RosenbergSouth Carolina Pain and Spine Specialists, Murrels Inlet, SC, USA.
Sean LiNational Spine and Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0492-1179
Kasra AmirdelfanIPM Medical Group, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Marshall BedderDepartment of Surgery, Pain Medicine Service, Charlie Norwood Veterans Administration Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many of the current treatments for chronic neuropathic pain have variable effectiveness and known side effects. Given the prevalence of this type of intractable pain (3-17% of general population), additional therapeutic non-invasive approaches are desired. Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) delivered at 0.5Hz provides an effective pain relief without side effects. The objective of this randomized, controlled, multi-site clinical trial was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of mPNS in patients with chronic, intractable, post-traumatic or post-surgical neuropathic pain to comprehensive Conventional Medical Management (CMM). Methods: A total of 65 patients with post-traumatic, post-surgical neuropathy were treated within a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of mPNS + CMM to CMM alone. Patients were randomized 1:1 and followed through 90 days. The primary endpoint is a proportion of responders, 50% or greater reduction in pain at Day 90. The secondary endpoints included the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results: At 3 months, 71% of subjects were considered responders (>50% pain relief) in the mPNS + CMM group vs 13% of subjects in the CMM group. The mPNS + CMM group had a mean reduction in VAS scores at Day 90 of 3.8 points (>50% reduction), while CMM showed less than a 1-point (0.7 point) mean reduction or ~10% reduction (p < 0.0001). The EQ-5D-3L score increased in the mPNS + CMM study group, whereas the CMM group showed no improvement in EQ-5D-3L at Day 90. PGIC responder rates were 80.6% and 4.3% at Day 90 for mPNS + CMM and CMM groups, respectively. Conclusion: mPNS + CMM was superior to CMM in a randomized prospective study when used for treatment of post-traumatic, post-surgical neuropathy. Due to the lack of other effective non-invasive treatments for neuropathic pain, mPNS should be considered much earlier in the treatment algorithm.

Indexed as

cost effectiveneuropathic painneuropathynoninvasivepain relief

Identifiers

PMID39359387
PMCPMC11446200

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.