ArticleJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2025
Repeat round of auricular percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation for pediatric disorders of gut brain interaction.
Article in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPercutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation (PENFS) is an FDA-approved nonpharmacological modality for treating disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) in pediatric patients. PENFS presumably functions through stimulation of cranial nerves. There is limited data on patients that require more than a 4-week cycle of treatment with PENFS. We examined the effect of repeated rounds of PENFS on recurrent symptoms and predictors for multiple treatments.
methodsWe evaluated charts of patients who underwent PENFS placement for DGBI. Data included demographics, medical history, and validated questionnaire responses. Changes over time after each round of placement were assessed. Baseline measures were compared between patients with single versus two rounds.
resultsA total of 22 patients (median age 17.5 years, 18 (82%) females) with repeated PENFS met the inclusion criteria. A propensity-matched control group (n = 22) showed no significant differences in demographics or diagnoses. Patients requiring repeated PENFS placements had higher PCS-C scores (median 24.5 (IQR 18-28) vs. 16.5 (IQR 9.5-22.5); p = 0.0135), and higher PHQ-9 scores (median 10 (IQR 8-14) vs. 7 (IQR 7.5-9.5); p = 0.0272). The second round of PENFS placements significantly reduced API, PCS-C, FDI, PHQ-9, and CSI scores (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences between scores after the first and second rounds were noted.
conclusionRepeating PENFS treatments are becoming common in clinical practice. Our study shows that repeat rounds are as effective as the initial ones, with pain catastrophizing and depression predicting worse outcomes and the need for repeat and/or longer round of treatment.
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.