An experimental study comparing the effects of combined transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation and electromagnetic millimeter waves for spinal pain in Hong Kong

Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

Modern acupuncture-like stimulation methods: a literature review

Acupuncture therapy has been proved to be effective for diverse diseases, symptoms, and conditions in numerous clinical trials. The growing popularity of acupuncture therapy has triggered the development of modern acupuncture-like stimulation devices (ASDs), which are equivalent or superior to manual acupuncture with respect to safety, decreased risk of infection, and facilitation of clinical trials. Here, we aim to summarize the research on modern ASDs, with a focus on featured devices undergoing active research and their effectiveness and target symptoms, along with annual publication rates. We searched the popular electronic databases Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, and analyzed English-language studies on humans. Thereby, a total of 728 studies were identified, of which 195 studies met our inclusion criteria. Electrical stimulators were found to be the earliest and most widely studied devices (133 articles), followed by laser (44 articles), magnetic (16 articles), and ultrasound (2 articles) stimulators. A total of 114 studies used randomized controlled trials, and 109 studies reported therapeutic benefits. The majority of the studies (32%) focused on analgesia and pain-relief effects, followed by effects on brain activity (16%). All types of the reviewed ASDs were associated with increasing annual publication trends; specifically, the annual growth in publications regarding noninvasive stimulation methods was more rapid than that regarding invasive methods. Based on this observation, we anticipate that the noninvasive or minimally invasive ASDs will become more popular in acupuncture therapy.

Effectiveness of preemptive analgesia using a frequency rhythmic electrical modulation system in patients having instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized prospective study.

PURPOSE

To assess postoperative analgesic requirements after Phyback therapy preemptively in patients undergoing lumbar stabilization.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulation System is the latest method of preemptive analgesia.

METHODS

Forty patients were divided into two groups. Patients who were to receive tramadol were allocated to "group A" and those who were to receive Phyback therapy were allocated to "group B." In patients with a visual analog scale score of >4 or a verbal rating scale score of >2, 75 mg of diclofenac IM was administered. The amount of analgesic consumption, the bolus demand dosage, and the number of bolus doses administered were recorded. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the visual analog patient satisfaction scale.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in the visual analog scale and verbal rating scale scores in the fourth, sixth, 12th, and 24th hours. The number of bolus infusions was significantly lower in group B. The amount of analgesic consumption was higher in group A. There was a significant difference between the two groups in the number of bolus infusions and the total amount of analgesic consumption, and this comparison showed better results for group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of Phyback therapy reduced postoperative opioid consumption and analgesic demand, and it contributed to reducing patients' level of pain and increased patient satisfaction. Moreover, the application of preemptive Phyback therapy contributed to reducing preoperative pain which may have reduced patient anxiety.

Electrotherapy for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the short, intermediate and long-term effects of electrotherapy on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, global perceived effect, and quality of life in adults with neck pain with and without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to August 2012; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; and consulted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but we assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty small trials (1239 people with neck pain) containing 38 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities were as follows.Very low quality evidence determined that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) and repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) were more effective than placebo, while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed inconsistent results.Very low quality evidence determined that PEMF, rMS and TENS were more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence (1 trial, 52 participants) determined that permanent magnets (necklace) were no more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.82, random-effects model).Very low quality evidence showed that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) were not more effective than placebo.There were four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none of the effects were of clinical importance. When TENS, iontophoresis and PEMF were compared to another treatment, very low quality evidence prevented us from suggesting any recommendations. No adverse side effects were reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the evidence is of low or very low quality, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo. When compared to other interventions the quality of evidence was very low thus preventing further recommendations.Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, EMS, and a static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples, include more precise standardization, and detail treatment characteristics.

Interpretation of subgroup effects in published trials

With the rapidly expanding number of studies reporting on treatment subgroups come new challenges in analyzing and interpreting this sometimes complex area of the literature. This article discusses 3 important issues regarding the analysis and interpretation of existing trials or systematic reviews that report on treatment effect modifiers (subgroups) for specific physical therapy interventions. The key messages are: (1) point estimates of treatment modifier effect size (interaction effect) and their confidence intervals can be calculated using group-level data when individual patient-level data are not available; (2) interaction effects do not define the total effect size of the intervention in the subgroup but rather how much more effective it is in the subgroup than in those not in the subgroup; (3) recommendations regarding the use of an intervention in a subgroup need to consider the size and direction of the main effect and the interaction effect; and (4) rather than simply judging whether a treatment modifier effect is clinically important based only on the interaction effect size, a better criterion is to determine whether the combined effect of the interaction effect and main effect makes the difference between an overall effect that is clinically important and one that is not clinically important.

A literature review reveals that trials evaluating treatment of non-specific low back pain use inconsistent criteria to identify serious pathologies and nerve root involvement

OBJECTIVES

The broad aim of this study was to assess the homogeneity of patients included in trials of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). To do this, we investigated the consistency and clarity of criteria used to identify and exclude participants with serious pathologies and nerve root compromise in randomized controlled trials, investigating interventions for NSLBP.

METHODS

We searched Medline database for randomized controlled trials of low back pain (LBP). published between 2000 and 2009. We then randomly selected and screened trials for inclusion until we had 50 eligible trials. Data were extracted on the criteria used to identify cases of serious conditions (e.g. cancer, fracture) and nerve root involvement.

RESULTS

The majority of papers (35/50) explicitly excluded patients with serious pathology. However, the terminology used and examples given were highly variable. Nerve root involvement was an exclusion criterion in the majority but not all studies. The criteria used for excluding patients with nerve root involvement varied greatly between studies. The most common criteria were 'motor, sensory or reflex changes' (nine studies), followed by 'pain radiating below the knee' (five studies) and 'reduced straight leg raise which reproduces leg pain' (five studies). In half of the included studies, the criteria used, while alluding to nerve root involvement, were not explained adequately for us to determine the types of patients included or excluded.

DISCUSSION

The inconsistent and unclear criteria used to identify cases of serious pathology and nerve root compromise means that published trials of LBP likely include heterogeneous patient populations. This trait limits our ability to make comparisons across trials or pool studies. Standardization and consensus is important for future research.

Does acupuncture improve quality of life for patients with pain associated with the spine? A systematic review

This paper aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture for qualities of life (QoL) in patients suffering from pain associated with the spine (PAWS). Acupuncture has been shown to reduce pain severity, but its effect on QoL is unknown. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as well as EMBASE were searched. Published randomized controlled trials on PAWS comparing acupuncture with waiting-list or sham interventions were considered. Eight out of 186 trials were included. For physical functioning, acupuncture was better than waiting-list at immediate and short-term followups; and was better than sham interventions at immediate assessment (SMD = 0.40. 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). For mental functioning, acupuncture was better than waiting-list at short-term followup and sham interventions at intermediate-term followup (SMD = 0.27. 95% CI 0.03 to 0.51). A similar effect was observed on pain reduction. Discrepancies in point selection for relieving anxiety and insufficient training of trial acupuncturists were also identified. Acupuncture has a moderate effect on the improvement of physical functioning and pain for PAWS patients in the short term; but the effect for mental functioning is small and delayed. Future trials should address point selection and consistency in the qualifications of trial acupuncturists.

How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of 'completely recovered'. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research.

Efficacy of the IZL-2003 immunotherapeutic system in patients with liver cancer: an analysis of 40 cases

AIM: To evaluate the curative effect of the IZL-2003 immunotherapeutic system in patients with liver cancer.

METHODS: Sixty-one patients with liver cancer were divided into treatment group (n = 40) and control group (n = 21). The patients in the treatment group were treated with liver-protecting drugs in combination with 35-42.8-GHz millimeter wave. The patients in the control group were treated only with liver-protecting drugs. Routine blood tests and liver function tests were performed within two weeks before treatment. T-cell subgroup detection, B-mode ultrasonic scan or computed tomography (CT) were performed within one month before treatment. Routine blood tests were performed again within two weeks after treatment, and T-cell subgroups were retested within three months after treatment.

RESULTS: Millimeter-wave radiation significantly increased white cell count and hemoglobin level in patients with decreased white cell count (P = 0.028 and 0.017, respectively), but had no significant impact on blood platelet count. The counts of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells in patients with liver cancer were less than normal level (486.45 ± 255.35 and 350.05 ± 246.26 cells/μL, respectively). Millimeter-wave radiation significantly increased the counts of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. In patients with CD4⁺ cell count less than 400 cells/μL, both the counts of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ cells significantly increased after millimeter-wave radiation (P = 0.03 and 0.067, respectively). Millimeter-wave radiation could effectively improve the symptoms in patients with liver cancer, and the effective rate was above 80% (P < 0.05). Millimeter-wave radiation could also improve Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) score and life quality in liver cancer patients.

CONCLUSION: Millimeter-wave radiation used in the IZL-2003 immunotherapeutic system can enhance immunity, increase white cell count and hemoglobin level, improve life quality, and prevent tumor recurrence and metastasis in patients with liver cancer.

Electrotherapy for neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapeutic option remains unclear. This update replaces our 2005 Cochrane review on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether electrotherapy improves pain, disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with neck pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computer-assisted searches of: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to December 2008; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; consulted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy, used primarily as unimodal treatment for neck pain. Quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We were unable to statistically pool any of the results, but assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen small trials (1043 people with neck pain) with 23 comparisons were included. Analysis was limited by trials of varied quality, heterogeneous treatment subtypes and conflicting results. The main findings for reduction of neck pain by treatment with electrotherapeutic modalities are:Very low quality evidence that pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are more effective than placebo.Low quality evidence that permanent magnets (necklace) are not more effective than placebo.Very low quality evidence that modulated galvanic current, iontophoresis and electric muscle stimulation (EMS) are not more effective than placebo.There were only four trials that reported on other outcomes such as function and global perceived effects, but none were of clinical importance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot make any definite statements on the efficacy and clinical usefulness of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low, we are uncertain about the estimate of the effect. Further research is very likely to change both the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results. Current evidence for PEMF, rMS, and TENS shows that these modalities might be more effective than placebo but not other interventions. Funding bias should be considered, especially in PEMF studies. Galvanic current, iontophoresis, electric muscle stimulation(EMS), and static magnetic field did not reduce pain or disability. Future trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.

A guide to interpretation of studies investigating subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions

Many researchers and clinicians believe the effectiveness of existing physical therapy interventions can be improved by targeting the provision of specific interventions at patients who respond best to that treatment. Although this approach has the potential to improve outcomes for some patients, it needs to be implemented carefully because some methods used to identify subgroups can produce biased or misleading results. The aim of this article is to assist readers in assessing the validity and generalizability of studies designed to identify subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions. The key messages are that subgroups should be identified using high-quality randomized controlled trials, the investigation should be limited to a relatively small number of potential subgroups for which there is a plausible rationale, subgroup effects should be investigated by formally analyzing statistical interactions, and findings of subgroups should be subject to external validation.