ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Evaluating Mirror Therapy Protocols in Phantom Limb Pain Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Theoretical foundations of Progressive Motor Training (PMT) for Phantom Limb Pain.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Myoelectric and Progressive Motor Training for Phantom Limb Pain in People with Amputations During War: A Feasibility Report.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Targeting Phantom Pain with Psilocybin: Toward Integration with Adaptive Sensory Technologies.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mirror therapy is among the most widely used treatments for phantom limb pain. However, discrepancies exist in the way it is conducted, and its effectiveness varies widely. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the application of mirror therapy across the literature and to identify treatment features unique to studies with clinically significant pain reduction outcomes. Articles published until July 2024 were identified through a systematic search of the following electronic databases: Medline (via EBSCOhost), PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), Africa-Wide Information (via EBSCOhost), and Scopus. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening of titles and abstracts, review of full-text articles, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively. We included 32 studies in this review, 21 of which were deemed effective for achieving clinically significant pain reduction of 50% or 2 points on a 0-10 scale. There were inconsistencies in various treatment components including treatment setting, type of pre-treatment education, treatment technique, method of exercise delivery, treatment duration, and frequency of treatment sessions. Despite identifying common treatment features across studies with clinically significant pain reduction outcomes, we found no evidence of unanimous consensus in the literature towards any specific protocol for mirror therapy. Establishing a standardized treatment protocol could enhance the reliability and reproducibility of treatment outcomes in future studies and ensure a meaningful comparison between mirror therapy and other treatments in clinical trials and meta-analyses.
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.