↓ Skip to main content

A New Transient Sham TENS Device Allows for Investigator Blinding While Delivering a True Placebo Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A New Transient Sham TENS Device Allows for Investigator Blinding While Delivering a True Placebo Treatment
Published in
Journal of Pain, November 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.07.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Rakel, Nicholas Cooper, Heather J. Adams, Bryan R. Messer, Laura A. Frey Law, Douglas R. Dannen, Carrie A. Miller, Anya C. Polehna, Rachelle C. Ruggle, Carol G.T. Vance, Deirdre M. Walsh, Kathleen A. Sluka

Abstract

This study compared a new transient sham transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) that delivers current for 45 seconds to an inactive sham and active TENS to determine the degree of blinding and influence on pain reduction. Pressure-pain thresholds (PPT), heat-pain thresholds (HPT), and pain intensities to tonic heat and pressure were measured in 69 healthy adults before and after randomization. Allocation investigators and subjects were asked to identify the treatment administered. The transient sham blinded investigators 100% of the time and 40% of subjects compared to the inactive sham that blinded investigators 0% of the time and 21% of subjects. Investigators and subjects were blinded only 7% and 13% of the time, respectively, with active TENS. Neither placebo treatment resulted in significant changes in PPT, HPT, or pain intensities. Subjects using higher active TENS amplitudes (> or =17 mAs) had significantly higher PPTs and lower pain intensities to tonic pressure than subjects using lower amplitudes (<17 mAs). HPTs and pain intensities to tonic heat were not significantly changed. The transient TENS completely blinds investigators to treatment and does not reduce pain, thereby providing a true placebo treatment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Other 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 17%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Engineering 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 51 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 July 2024.
All research outputs
#10,723,471
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain
#1,543
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,974
of 241,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. 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 241,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.