ArticleCureus2025
Effects of Percutaneous Electrical Stimulation on Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
introductionChronic pain affects millions worldwide, with 15% to 25% being neuropathic due to conditions like diabetic neuropathy and radiculopathy. Neuropathic pain, often described as burning or shooting, includes symptoms like allodynia, significantly impacting the quality of life and posing high economic costs. While pharmacological treatments are common, many patients require more invasive, costly interventions such as spinal cord stimulation. As an alternative, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) therapy (PT) offers a less invasive, cost-effective approach that can be administered outpatient, reducing hospitalization costs and providing psychological benefits like anxiety and stress relief.
aimThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of PT in the short, medium, and long term in patients affected by chronic neuropathic pain, resistant to conventional pharmacological therapies, using a single active PT probe.
methodsA total of 100 patients were enrolled for the first PT procedure, and 190 procedures were performed from 2021 to 2023. Excluding those for whom pain could not be detected during follow-up, 41 patients were enrolled, to whom only one PT procedure was performed (Group I). Fourteen patients were enrolled, to whom two PT treatments were performed (Group II), and finally, eight patients were enrolled, to whom three or more PT treatments were performed (Group III). Therefore, a total of 63 patients were enrolled, and 106 PT procedures were performed with pain detected according to the Numeric Pain Scale (NRS) during the entire follow-up period. All patients who presented a trigger point and a specific nevus path or who presented a specific allodynic area caused by a surgical scar were treated.
resultsThe group of patients who showed a greater decrease in pain from T0 (baseline) to T1 (three hours after PT) were those who underwent two PT sessions (-52.7%, p = .001). The greatest percentage decrease between before the procedure and seven days after the PT was obtained in the group of patients who underwent three or more PT sessions (T0 4.9 vs. T2 2.9, -40.8%, p < .001). The same group of patients also showed the greatest decrease in pain four weeks after the PT (T0 4.9 vs. T3 3.1, -36.7%, p < .001).
conclusionPT appears to be an alternative therapy to pharmacological and infiltrative therapy against chronic neuropathic pain.
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.