两种电刺激(直流神经肌肉电刺激和经皮电刺激)对糖尿病周围神经病变物理治疗影响的开放标签比较研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Journal of Diabetes Research Pub Date : 2025-02-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/jdr/9970124
Dimitrios Kostopoulos, Konstantine Rizopoulos, Joe McGilvrey, Jennifer Hauskey, Jeff Courcier, Kay Connor-Israel, Harry Koster, Ramona von Leden
{"title":"两种电刺激(直流神经肌肉电刺激和经皮电刺激)对糖尿病周围神经病变物理治疗影响的开放标签比较研究。","authors":"Dimitrios Kostopoulos, Konstantine Rizopoulos, Joe McGilvrey, Jennifer Hauskey, Jeff Courcier, Kay Connor-Israel, Harry Koster, Ramona von Leden","doi":"10.1155/jdr/9970124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b>The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of treatments with two different electrical stimulation (e-stim) devices-pulsed direct current (DC) (Neubie) and alternating current (AC) (transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS))-in the treatment of symptoms for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). <b>Design:</b>Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel groups. <b>Methods:</b> One hundred fifty participants were recruited from 13 Hands-On Diagnostics-affiliated sites across several US locations. Participants were randomly divided into two groups for comparison-Neubie and TENS. Participants received a 30-min foot stimulation protocol with either TENS unit electrodes or Neubie electrodes. Outcome measures included the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), two-point discrimination, visual analogue scale (VAS), vibration sense (VBS), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and nerve amplitude. The effect of the two variables on all outcome measures was determined using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). <b>Results:</b> The Neubie group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in TCNS for both right and left sides (<i>p</i> < 0.001), two-point discrimination of the dominant foot (<i>p</i> = 0.001), VBS (<i>p</i> = 0.022) and VAS scores (<i>p</i> = 0.009), and some but not all nerves tested by NCV (<i>p</i> < 0.05). <b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, DPN treatment with the Neubie resulted in significant improvements in several major outcome measures, whereas TENS showed no significant difference in any outcome measure. These findings support the use of DC devices as a potentially superior therapeutic treatment for neuropathy over AC devices like the TENS unit. <b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05442021.</p>","PeriodicalId":15576,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Research","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9970124"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11824710/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Open-Label Comparative Study of the Impact of Two Types of Electrical Stimulation (Direct Current Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation and Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation) on Physical Therapy Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.\",\"authors\":\"Dimitrios Kostopoulos, Konstantine Rizopoulos, Joe McGilvrey, Jennifer Hauskey, Jeff Courcier, Kay Connor-Israel, Harry Koster, Ramona von Leden\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/jdr/9970124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b>The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of treatments with two different electrical stimulation (e-stim) devices-pulsed direct current (DC) (Neubie) and alternating current (AC) (transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS))-in the treatment of symptoms for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). <b>Design:</b>Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel groups. <b>Methods:</b> One hundred fifty participants were recruited from 13 Hands-On Diagnostics-affiliated sites across several US locations. Participants were randomly divided into two groups for comparison-Neubie and TENS. Participants received a 30-min foot stimulation protocol with either TENS unit electrodes or Neubie electrodes. Outcome measures included the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), two-point discrimination, visual analogue scale (VAS), vibration sense (VBS), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and nerve amplitude. The effect of the two variables on all outcome measures was determined using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). <b>Results:</b> The Neubie group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in TCNS for both right and left sides (<i>p</i> < 0.001), two-point discrimination of the dominant foot (<i>p</i> = 0.001), VBS (<i>p</i> = 0.022) and VAS scores (<i>p</i> = 0.009), and some but not all nerves tested by NCV (<i>p</i> < 0.05). <b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, DPN treatment with the Neubie resulted in significant improvements in several major outcome measures, whereas TENS showed no significant difference in any outcome measure. These findings support the use of DC devices as a potentially superior therapeutic treatment for neuropathy over AC devices like the TENS unit. <b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05442021.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15576,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Diabetes Research\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"9970124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11824710/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Diabetes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/jdr/9970124\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/jdr/9970124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估和比较两种不同的电刺激装置-脉冲直流(DC) (Neubie)和交流(AC)(经皮电刺激(TENS))-治疗糖尿病周围神经病变(DPN)患者症状的有效性。设计:平行组随机对照试验(RCT)。方法:从美国几个地区的13个动手诊断附属网站招募了150名参与者。参与者随机分为两组进行比较:neubie组和TENS组。参与者使用TENS单元电极或Neubie电极接受30分钟的足部刺激方案。结果测量包括多伦多临床神经病评分(TCNS)、两点辨别、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、振动感(VBS)、神经传导速度(NCV)和神经振幅。使用协方差分析(ANCOVA)确定这两个变量对所有结果测量的影响。结果:Neubie组在左右侧的TCNS (p < 0.001)、优势足两点辨别(p = 0.001)、VBS (p = 0.022)和VAS评分(p = 0.009)以及部分但不是全部神经NCV测试(p < 0.05)方面均有统计学意义的改善。结论:总体而言,使用Neubie治疗DPN在几个主要结果指标上有显著改善,而TENS在任何结果指标上均无显著差异。这些发现支持使用直流装置作为一种潜在的更好的治疗神经病变的方法,而不是像TENS装置这样的交流装置。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT05442021。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Open-Label Comparative Study of the Impact of Two Types of Electrical Stimulation (Direct Current Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation and Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation) on Physical Therapy Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

Objective:The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of treatments with two different electrical stimulation (e-stim) devices-pulsed direct current (DC) (Neubie) and alternating current (AC) (transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS))-in the treatment of symptoms for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Design:Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel groups. Methods: One hundred fifty participants were recruited from 13 Hands-On Diagnostics-affiliated sites across several US locations. Participants were randomly divided into two groups for comparison-Neubie and TENS. Participants received a 30-min foot stimulation protocol with either TENS unit electrodes or Neubie electrodes. Outcome measures included the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), two-point discrimination, visual analogue scale (VAS), vibration sense (VBS), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and nerve amplitude. The effect of the two variables on all outcome measures was determined using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results: The Neubie group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in TCNS for both right and left sides (p < 0.001), two-point discrimination of the dominant foot (p = 0.001), VBS (p = 0.022) and VAS scores (p = 0.009), and some but not all nerves tested by NCV (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Overall, DPN treatment with the Neubie resulted in significant improvements in several major outcome measures, whereas TENS showed no significant difference in any outcome measure. These findings support the use of DC devices as a potentially superior therapeutic treatment for neuropathy over AC devices like the TENS unit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05442021.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes Research
Journal of Diabetes Research ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
152
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Diabetes Research is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The journal welcomes submissions focusing on the epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, management, and prevention of diabetes, as well as associated complications, such as diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信