CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT04071275Updated Aug 29, 2019

Assessing Possible Additive Effects of tDCS and Mirror Therapy Treatments for Phantom Pain

An interventional study of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Mirror therapy in Phantom Limb Pain, sponsored by Loewenstein Hospital. Status unknown at 1 site in Israel. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-08-29.

Sponsored by Loewenstein Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Aug 2019), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 4 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Apr 2018, registered Aug 2019).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

In this study we will examine assess if treatment with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) improve the analgesic effects of mirror therapy for patients with phantom pain of lower extremity. The study will include 3 arms: only mirror therapy, mirror therapy + sham tDCS, and mirror therapy + active tDCS.

Read the detailed description

Phantom pain following amputation is difficult to treat, resulting in many patients who suffer. One of the mechanisms suspected to contribute to phantom pain is abnormal plasticity and reorganization of the cortex.

Mirror therapy is a behavioral technique that proven useful for the treatment of phantom pain, yet the analgesic effects are unfortunately moderate and not long lasting. The assumed underlying mechanism of mirror therapy treatment is the induction of neuronal plasticity in the opposite direction than the abnormal reorganization of the cortex (due to the amputation), and by that relive pain.

tDCS is a non-invasive technique that allow the administration of low currents directly to the scalp. The currents affect the cortex, and result in changes to the membrane potential of neurons in the stimulated area. This in turn affects the tendency of those neurons to generate action potentials.

It was hypothesize that combination of mirror therapy and tDCS treatment could result in additive effects. According to this hypothesis, the effects of the mirror therapy could be enhanced by the tDCS treatment. The aim of the current study is to investigate this hypothesis.

02

Conditions studied

  • Phantom Limb Pain

Browse trials for

03

In context

Phantom Limb

150 studies on the registry are indexed under Phantom Limb; 40 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 60 is above the median of 28 across 115 interventional studies indexed under Phantom Limb.

Browse Phantom Limb studies →

Lead sponsor

Loewenstein Hospital is the lead sponsor of 24 studies on the registry; 9 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Age 18 or older
  2. Underwent unilateral lower limb amputation in the past 3 months. A
  3. Reported average phantom pain of 4 or more in the past week.
  4. No change in other medications 1 week prior to enrollment, not including SOS.
  5. Able understand the purpose of the study and to provide informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Ferromagnetic metal in the head or neck.
  1. Epilepsy or prior seizures within the last 1 year.
  2. Suffering from severe depression
  3. History of unexplained fainting or loss of consciousness
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
60 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Mirror therapy

    Subjects will be asked to perform specific movements (using the unaffected limb while watching its mirrored reflection for 20 minutes per day, for 10 treatment days, completed during two weeks (every weekday, excluding weekends)

    Other: Mirror therapy

  • Sham comparator
    Mirror therapy + sham tDCS

    Subject will undergo the mirror therapy treatment, as in the first study arm. In addition, at the same time, a sham tDCS treatment will be applied.

    Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) · Other: Mirror therapy

  • Experimental
    Mirror therapy + active tDCS

    Subject will undergo the mirror therapy treatment, as in the first study arm. In addition, at the same time, an active tDCS treatment will be applied.

    Device: transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) · Other: Mirror therapy

Interventions

  • Devicetranscranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

    tDCS is a non-invasive technique that allow the administration of low currents directly to the scalp. The currents affect the cortex, and result in changes to the membrane potential of neurons in the stimulated area. This in turn affects the tendency of those neurons to generate action potentials.

  • OtherMirror therapy

    Mirror therapy is a behavioral technique that proven useful for the treatment of phantom pain, yet the analgesic effects are unfortunately moderate and not long lasting. The assumed underlying mechanism of mirror therapy treatment is the induction of neuronal plasticity in the opposite direction than the abnormal reorganization of the cortex (due to the amputation), and by that relive pain.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

    The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the average Phantom Limb Pain in the past week will serve as primary measure. The primary outcome is the changes in the VAS score between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. VAS is a widely used, continuous measure of pain intensity, with scores ranging between 0-10, higher scores reflecting higher pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment

Secondary outcomes

  1. McGill total score

    Changes in short-form McGill total score between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a self-reporting measure of pain used for patients with a number of diagnoses. It assesses both quality and intensity of subjective pain. The MPQ is composed of 78 words, of which respondents choose those that best describe their experience of pain. Scores are tabulated by summing values associated with each word. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a shorter version of the original MPQ. The pain rating index has 2 subscales: 1. Sensory subscale with 11 words, and 2. Affective subscale with 4 words from the original MPQ. These words or items are rated on an intensity scale as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe. There's also one item for present pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment

  2. McGill sensory sub-score

    Changes in short-form McGill sensory sub-score between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a self-reporting measure of pain used for patients with a number of diagnoses. It assesses both quality and intensity of subjective pain. The MPQ is composed of 78 words, of which respondents choose those that best describe their experience of pain. Scores are tabulated by summing values associated with each word. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a shorter version of the original MPQ. The pain rating index has 2 subscales: 1. Sensory subscale with 11 words, and 2. Affective subscale with 4 words from the original MPQ. These words or items are rated on an intensity scale as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe. There's also one item for present pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment

  3. Changes in the worst pain

    Changes in the worst pain over the past week (taken from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI questionnaire) between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. The scale rapidly assesses the severity of pain and its impact on functioning. No scoring algorithm, but "worst pain" or the arithmetic mean of the four severity items can be used as measures of pain severity; the arithmetic mean of the seven interference items can be used as a measure of pain interference.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment

  4. Changes in the average pain

    Changes in the average pain over the past week (taken from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI questionnaire) between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. The scale rapidly assesses the severity of pain and its impact on functioning. No scoring algorithm, but "worst pain" or the arithmetic mean of the four severity items can be used as measures of pain severity; the arithmetic mean of the seven interference items can be used as a measure of pain interference.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment

  5. Changes in the VAS score

    Changes in the VAS score between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. VAS is a widely used, continuous measure of pain intensity, with scores ranging between 0-10, higher scores reflecting higher pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment

  6. Changes in short-form McGill total score

    Changes in short-form McGill total score between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a self-reporting measure of pain used for patients with a number of diagnoses. It assesses both quality and intensity of subjective pain. The MPQ is composed of 78 words, of which respondents choose those that best describe their experience of pain. Scores are tabulated by summing values associated with each word. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a shorter version of the original MPQ. The pain rating index has 2 subscales: 1. Sensory subscale with 11 words, and 2. Affective subscale with 4 words from the original MPQ. These words or items are rated on an intensity scale as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe. There's also one item for present pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment

  7. Changes in short-form McGill sensory sub-score

    Changes in short-form McGill sensory sub-score between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a self-reporting measure of pain used for patients with a number of diagnoses. It assesses both quality and intensity of subjective pain. The MPQ is composed of 78 words, of which respondents choose those that best describe their experience of pain. Scores are tabulated by summing values associated with each word. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a shorter version of the original MPQ. The pain rating index has 2 subscales: 1. Sensory subscale with 11 words, and 2. Affective subscale with 4 words from the original MPQ. These words or items are rated on an intensity scale as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe. There's also one item for present pain intensity.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment

  8. Changes in the worst pain

    Changes in the worst pain over the past week (taken from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI questionnaire) between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. The scale rapidly assesses the severity of pain and its impact on functioning. No scoring algorithm, but "worst pain" or the arithmetic mean of the four severity items can be used as measures of pain severity; the arithmetic mean of the seven interference items can be used as a measure of pain interference.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment

  9. Changes in the average pain

    Changes in the average pain over the past week (taken from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI questionnaire) between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. The scale rapidly assesses the severity of pain and its impact on functioning. No scoring algorithm, but "worst pain" or the arithmetic mean of the four severity items can be used as measures of pain severity; the arithmetic mean of the seven interference items can be used as a measure of pain interference.

    Time frame: between baseline week and 12 weeks after the end of the treatment

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Loewenstein Hospital
    Ra'anana, 43100, Israel
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 29, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04071275
Lead sponsor
Loewenstein Hospital
Responsible party
Hagay Amir (Medical Diractor, Loewenstein Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 28, 2019
Start date
Apr 22, 2018
Primary completion
Nov 30, 2019 (estimated)
Completion
Nov 30, 2019 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 29, 2019

Study contacts

Nitza Segal, M.A
Contact
nitza@clalit.org.il
9729542471155
Roi Treister, PhD
Contact
rtreister@univ.haifa.ac.il
972-533-839935
Nitza Segal, M.A
study chair · Leowenstein Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Aug 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion