Osteo Arthritis Knee
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of a two-week self Cranial Electrical Stimulation(CES) on pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis(OA)
Interventions
CES will be applied for 60 minutes per session daily for 2 weeks (Monday to Friday) via the Alpha-Stim M Electromedical Products International, Inc., Mineral Wells, TX).
DEVICESham-CES
For sham CES, the electrodes will be identical look and be placed in the same positions as for active stimulation, but the stimulator will not deliver electrical current.
Sponsors
The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* have self-reported unilateral or bilateral knee OA pain, according to American College of Rheumatology criteria * have had knee OA pain in the past 3 months with an average of at least 30 on a 100 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain * can speak and read English * have a device with internet access that can be used for secure video conferencing for real- time remote supervision * have no plan to change medication regimens for pain throughout the trial * are able to travel to the coordinating center * are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to enrollment
Exclusion criteria
* history of brain surgery, brain tumor, seizure,stroke, or intracranial metal implantation * serious medical illness, such as uncontrolled hypertension (i.e., systolic blood pressure/ diastolic blood pressure ≥ 150/95 mm Hg)heart failure, or history of acute myocardial infarction * alcohol/substance abuse * cognitive impairment * pregnancy or lactation * hospitalization within the preceding year for psychiatric illness
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Pain as Assessed by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain | week 2 | The NRS total score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (most intense pain imaginable). |
| Clinical Pain as Assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) | week 2 | The WOMAC ranges from 0 to 96, with higher scores indicating worse osteoarthritis (OA) pain-related symptoms |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) | week 2 | In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess PPT, a handheld digital pressure algometer (Wagner, Greenwich, CT) was applied at a constant rate of 0.3 kilograms force per centimeter squared (kgf/cm\^2) per second to the participant's knee. Participants were asked to notify the experimenter when the pressure sensation ''first becomes painful to assess pressure pain threshold (PPT). |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) | week 2 | In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). CPM was assessed as the change in PPT on the trapezius immediately after the immersion of the contralateral hand up to the wrist in a cold-water bath (Neslab, Portsmouth, NH) at 12 degrees C for one minute. \[To assess PPT, a handheld digital pressure algometer (Wagner, Greenwich, CT) was applied at a constant rate of 0.3 kilograms force per centimeter squared (kgf/cm\^2) per second to the participant's trapezius. Participants were asked to notify the experimenter when the pressure sensation ''first becomes painful to assess pressure pain threshold (PPT).\] |
| Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Anxiety Short Form | week 2 | The 7-item PROMIS Anxiety Short Form assesses the pure domain of anxiety in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 7 to 35 with higher scores indicating greater severity of anxiety. |
| Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Depression Short Form | week 2 | The 8-item PROMIS Depression Short Form assesses the pure domain of depression in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater severity of depression. |
| Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Sleep Disturbance Short Form | week 2 | The 8-item PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form assesses the pure domain of sleep disturbance in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely;3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater severity of sleep disturbance. |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Threshold (HPTH) | week 2 | In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess HPTH, heat stimuli were delivered to the participant's knee using a computer-controlled TSAII NeuroSensory Analyzer. From a baseline of 32 degrees Celsius, the temperature increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius per second until the participants responded by pressing a button to stop heat stimuli. Participants were instructed to press the button when the sensation ''first becomes painful to assess the heat pain threshold (HPTH). |
| Number of Participants With a Significant Change in Pain-related Cortical Response on Average as Assessed by a Continuous Wave, Multichannel Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Imaging System | baseline, week 2 | Pain-related cortical response will be measured using a continuous-wave, multichannel fNIRS imaging system (LIGHTNIRS, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with three semiconductor lasers at 780, 805, and 830 nm. Optical recordings will be collected during thermal pain stimulation. |
| Participant Satisfaction With Treatment Using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | week 2 | The CSQ-8 comprises eight items that are summed to yield an overall score of 8-32, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. |
| Feasibility as Measured by the Number of Participants That Completed the Full CES Protocol | week 2 | — |
| Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | week 2 | CES experience will be measured on a 10-item scale, with each item rated 0-10 and 0 being strongly disagree and 10 being strongly agree. Total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better CES experience. Question 1. It was easy to prepare the device and accessories Question 2. The device was unnecessarily complex Question 3. The device was easy to use Question 4. I felt the video conferences with a technical person were helpful Question 5. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this device quickly Question 6. The device was cumbersome to use Question 7. I felt confident using the device Question 8. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this device Question 9. The effectiveness of the treatment increased over the course of treatment Question 10. I felt that transcranial electrical stimulation treatment benefited me |
| Tolerability as Indicated by Number of Participants With Possible Side Effects of Treatment | week 2 | Measurement of presence and severity of possible side effects of treatment on a 0 (not at all) to 10 (highest degree) scale.If any side effects are reported, the degree of relatedness to the intervention will be assessed on a 5-point scale. |
| Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | week 2 | The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) consists of 13 items assessing three components of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. It is measured using the 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) scale. Total score ranges from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating greater pain catastrophizing. |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Tolerance (HPTO) | week 2 | In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess HPTO, heat stimuli were delivered to the participant's knee using a computer-controlled TSAII NeuroSensory Analyzer. From a baseline of 32 degrees Celsius, the temperature increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius per second until the participants responded by pressing a button to stop heat stimuli. Participants were instructed to press the button when they ''no longer feel able to tolerate the pain to assess their heat pain tolerance (HPTO). |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Sham-CES Sham-CES: For sham CES, the electrodes will be identical look and be placed in the same positions as for active stimulation, but the stimulator will not deliver electrical current. | 15 |
| Self-CES Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES): CES will be applied for 60 minutes per session daily for 2 weeks (Monday to Friday) via the Alpha-Stim M Electromedical Products International, Inc., Mineral Wells, TX). | 15 |
| Total | 30 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Sham-CES | Total | Self-CES |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 59.13 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.83 | 59.43 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.27 | 59.77 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.88 |
| Body Mass Index (BMI) | 33.66 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.33 | 33.11 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.13 | 32.56 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.17 |
| Clinical pain assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) | 52.67 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 21.413 | 52.44 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.5085 | 52.20 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.604 |
| Duration of Osteoarthritis | 55.87 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 40.64 | 81.03 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 80.86 | 108 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 103.87 |
| Education 2-Year College | 1 Participants | 5 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Education 4-Year College | 5 Participants | 7 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Education Doctoral Degree | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Education < High school | 5 Participants | 11 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Education Master's Degree | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as measured by Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) | 2.70 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.26 | 2.61 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.06 | 2.53 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.86 |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as measured by heat pain threshold (HPTH) | 40.12 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.69 | 39.23 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.16 | 38.34 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.44 |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as measured by heat pain tolerance (HPTO) | 43.85 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.26 | 43.54 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.16 | 43.22 degree Celsius STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.15 |
| Experimental Pain Sensitivity as measured by pressure pain threshold (PPT) | 1.86 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.32 | 1.73 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.14 | 1.60 kilogram-force (kgf) STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.95 |
| Pain as Assessed by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) | 34.67 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 32.48 | 39.50 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 26.92 | 44.33 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.9 |
| Psychosocial symptoms as measured by PROMIS - depression | 12.73 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.351 | 11.63 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.8985 | 10.53 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.446 |
| Psychosocial symptoms as measured by PROMIS - sleep disturbance | 27.47 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.029 | 24.835 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.608 | 22.20 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.187 |
| Psychosocial symptoms as measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | 18.40 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.495 | 16.10 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.28 | 13.80 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.065 |
| Psychosocial symptoms measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Info System - anxiety | 15.67 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.723 | 13.97 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4615 | 12.27 score on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.2 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized African American | 5 Participants | 8 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Hispanic | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 7 Participants | 15 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 15 Participants | 30 Participants | 15 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 10 Participants | 20 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 5 Participants | 10 Participants | 5 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 15 | 0 / 15 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 15 | 0 / 15 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 15 | 0 / 15 |
Outcome results
Primary
Clinical Pain as Assessed by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain
The NRS total score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (most intense pain imaginable).
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Clinical Pain as Assessed by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain | 40.40 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.79 |
| Self-CES | Clinical Pain as Assessed by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain | 27.33 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.89 |
Primary
Clinical Pain as Assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
The WOMAC ranges from 0 to 96, with higher scores indicating worse osteoarthritis (OA) pain-related symptoms
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Clinical Pain as Assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) | 47.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.136 |
| Self-CES | Clinical Pain as Assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) | 43.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 18.04 |
Secondary
Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM)
In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). CPM was assessed as the change in PPT on the trapezius immediately after the immersion of the contralateral hand up to the wrist in a cold-water bath (Neslab, Portsmouth, NH) at 12 degrees C for one minute. \[To assess PPT, a handheld digital pressure algometer (Wagner, Greenwich, CT) was applied at a constant rate of 0.3 kilograms force per centimeter squared (kgf/cm\^2) per second to the participant's trapezius. Participants were asked to notify the experimenter when the pressure sensation ''first becomes painful to assess pressure pain threshold (PPT).\]
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) | 1.93 kilograms force (kgf) | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Self-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) | 3.64 kilograms force (kgf) | Standard Deviation 1.67 |
Secondary
Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Threshold (HPTH)
In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess HPTH, heat stimuli were delivered to the participant's knee using a computer-controlled TSAII NeuroSensory Analyzer. From a baseline of 32 degrees Celsius, the temperature increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius per second until the participants responded by pressing a button to stop heat stimuli. Participants were instructed to press the button when the sensation ''first becomes painful to assess the heat pain threshold (HPTH).
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Threshold (HPTH) | 37.90 degree Celsius | Standard Deviation 2.03 |
| Self-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Threshold (HPTH) | 41.04 degree Celsius | Standard Deviation 3.17 |
Secondary
Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Tolerance (HPTO)
In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess HPTO, heat stimuli were delivered to the participant's knee using a computer-controlled TSAII NeuroSensory Analyzer. From a baseline of 32 degrees Celsius, the temperature increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius per second until the participants responded by pressing a button to stop heat stimuli. Participants were instructed to press the button when they ''no longer feel able to tolerate the pain to assess their heat pain tolerance (HPTO).
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Tolerance (HPTO) | 43.05 degree Celsius | Standard Deviation 2.77 |
| Self-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Heat Pain Tolerance (HPTO) | 44.56 degree Celsius | Standard Deviation 3.12 |
Secondary
Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT)
In order to measure experimental pain sensitivity, a multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) battery will be completed: heat pain threshold (HPTH), heat pain tolerance (HPTO), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM). To assess PPT, a handheld digital pressure algometer (Wagner, Greenwich, CT) was applied at a constant rate of 0.3 kilograms force per centimeter squared (kgf/cm\^2) per second to the participant's knee. Participants were asked to notify the experimenter when the pressure sensation ''first becomes painful to assess pressure pain threshold (PPT).
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) | 1.06 kilograms force (kgf) | Standard Deviation 0.48 |
| Self-CES | Experimental Pain Sensitivity as Measured Using a Multimodal Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Battery - Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) | 2.59 kilograms force (kgf) | Standard Deviation 1.46 |
Secondary
Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience
CES experience will be measured on a 10-item scale, with each item rated 0-10 and 0 being strongly disagree and 10 being strongly agree. Total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better CES experience. Question 1. It was easy to prepare the device and accessories Question 2. The device was unnecessarily complex Question 3. The device was easy to use Question 4. I felt the video conferences with a technical person were helpful Question 5. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this device quickly Question 6. The device was cumbersome to use Question 7. I felt confident using the device Question 8. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this device Question 9. The effectiveness of the treatment increased over the course of treatment Question 10. I felt that transcranial electrical stimulation treatment benefited me
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 3 | 9.93 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.29 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 2 | 0.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 4 | 8.73 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.55 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 1 | 9.80 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 5 | 9.67 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 6 | 0.27 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.7 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 7 | 9.67 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 8 | 0.53 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.36 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 9 | 6.47 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.5 |
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 10 | 5.80 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.55 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 8 | 0.20 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 1 | 9.93 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.26 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 6 | 0.07 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.26 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 2 | 0.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 3 | 10.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 10 | 6.33 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.1 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 7 | 10.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 4 | 9.27 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.94 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 9 | 5.67 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.35 |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Indicated by Participant's Cranial Electrical Stimulation (CES) Experience | Question 5 | 9.87 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.52 |
Secondary
Feasibility as Measured by the Number of Participants That Completed the Full CES Protocol
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Feasibility as Measured by the Number of Participants That Completed the Full CES Protocol | 15 Participants |
| Self-CES | Feasibility as Measured by the Number of Participants That Completed the Full CES Protocol | 15 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With a Significant Change in Pain-related Cortical Response on Average as Assessed by a Continuous Wave, Multichannel Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Imaging System
Pain-related cortical response will be measured using a continuous-wave, multichannel fNIRS imaging system (LIGHTNIRS, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with three semiconductor lasers at 780, 805, and 830 nm. Optical recordings will be collected during thermal pain stimulation.
Time frame: baseline, week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Number of Participants With a Significant Change in Pain-related Cortical Response on Average as Assessed by a Continuous Wave, Multichannel Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Imaging System | 0 Participants |
| Self-CES | Number of Participants With a Significant Change in Pain-related Cortical Response on Average as Assessed by a Continuous Wave, Multichannel Functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Imaging System | 15 Participants |
Secondary
Participant Satisfaction With Treatment Using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
The CSQ-8 comprises eight items that are summed to yield an overall score of 8-32, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Participant Satisfaction With Treatment Using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | 29.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.264 |
| Self-CES | Participant Satisfaction With Treatment Using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | 27.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.843 |
Secondary
Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Depression Short Form
The 8-item PROMIS Depression Short Form assesses the pure domain of depression in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater severity of depression.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Depression Short Form | 13.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.449 |
| Self-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Depression Short Form | 10.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.642 |
Secondary
Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Sleep Disturbance Short Form
The 8-item PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Short Form assesses the pure domain of sleep disturbance in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely;3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater severity of sleep disturbance.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Sleep Disturbance Short Form | 24.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.566 |
| Self-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by PROMIS - Sleep Disturbance Short Form | 22.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.126 |
Secondary
Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) consists of 13 items assessing three components of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. It is measured using the 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) scale. Total score ranges from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating greater pain catastrophizing.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | 15.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.505 |
| Self-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | 14.47 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.789 |
Secondary
Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Anxiety Short Form
The 7-item PROMIS Anxiety Short Form assesses the pure domain of anxiety in individuals age 18 and older, and each item on the measure is rated on a 5-point scale (1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always) with a range in score from 7 to 35 with higher scores indicating greater severity of anxiety.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Anxiety Short Form | 15.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.77 |
| Self-CES | Psychosocial Symptoms as Measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Anxiety Short Form | 13.20 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.663 |
Secondary
Tolerability as Indicated by Number of Participants With Possible Side Effects of Treatment
Measurement of presence and severity of possible side effects of treatment on a 0 (not at all) to 10 (highest degree) scale.If any side effects are reported, the degree of relatedness to the intervention will be assessed on a 5-point scale.
Time frame: week 2
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Sham-CES | Tolerability as Indicated by Number of Participants With Possible Side Effects of Treatment | 0 Participants |
| Self-CES | Tolerability as Indicated by Number of Participants With Possible Side Effects of Treatment | 0 Participants |