Trial reportJournal of pain research2024
Safety and Efficacy of Axon Therapy (SEAT Study), Utilizing Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain.
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.
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.
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
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromodulation for Pain and Fatigue in Hereditary and Acquired Neuromuscular Conditions: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Innovative strategies for diabetic peripheral neuropathy: From clinical management to emerging bioengineering solutions.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Mechanisms of Action of Low-Frequency Pulsed Magnetic Fields in Pain Control.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Techniques for Chronic Central and Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: New Diagnostics and Treatment Perspectives.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- Consensus Guidelines for the Use of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain and Neurological Diseases: A Neuron Project from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain; One Year Follow Up of Long-Term Outcomes.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.