| Title |
Tibial nerve stimulation with a miniature, wireless stimulator in chronic peripheral neuropathic pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s128861 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paweł Sokal, Marek Harat, Piotr Zieliński, Sara Kierońska |
| Abstract |
Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) can be effectively treated with peripheral nerve stimulation. In this clinical trial report, effectiveness of novel, miniature, wirelessly controlled microstimulator of tibial nerve in PNP and CRPS was evaluated. In this pilot study the average preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score in six patients was 7.5, with 1, 3 and 6 months: 2.6 (p=0.03), 1.6 (p=0.03), and 1.3 (p=0.02), respectively. The mean average score in the six patients a week preceding the baseline visit was 7.96, preceding the 1, 3 and 6 month visits: 3.32 (p=0.043), 3.65 (p=0.045), and 2.49 (p=0.002), respectively. The average short-form McGill pain score before surgery was 23.8, and after 1, 3 and 6 months it was 11.0 (p=0.45), 6.3 (p=0.043), and 4.5 (p=0.01), respectively. Applied therapy caused a reduction of pain immediately after its application and clinical improvement was sustained on a similar level in all patients for six months. No complications of the treatment were observed. Intermittent tibial nerve stimulation by using a novel, miniature, wirelessly controlled device can be effective and feasible in PNP and CRPS. It is a safe, minimally invasive, and convenient neuromodulative method. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Engineering | 7 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,667,445
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#956
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,000
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.