Evaluation of TENS during screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

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.

A Comparative Study between Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Fentanyl to Relieve Shoulder Pain during Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trail

Background

Traditionally, laparoscopic procedures have been performed under general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia is an effective alternative to general anesthesia. However, one of the intraoperative complications of performing laparoscopic surgery under spinal anesthesia is shoulder pain. This study aimed to compare the effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) with fentanyl on pain relief in patients who underwent gynecologic laparoscopy under spinal anesthesia.

Methods

We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial from May 2016 to March 2017. A sample of patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopy under spinal anesthesia was recruited. If they had shoulder pain, they randomly received either transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or 50 mg of fentanyl. Pain intensity was measured using the single item visual analogue scale (VAS-10 cm) immediately before and 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after treatment. Also, the effect of higher doses of analgesia on pain relief was analyzed.

Results

In all, 80 patients (40 patients in each group) were entered into the study. The mean pain intensity score was 9.02 ± 1.32 in the TENS group and 8.95 ± 1.33 in the fentanyl group at baseline (P = 0.80). Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that there was no significant difference on overall pain scores between the two treatment groups adjusted for age, BMI, total analgesia used, and baseline pain score (F (1, 74) = 1.44, P = 0.23). The use of analgesic drugs in the TENS group was significantly higher than the fentanyl group (P = 0.01). In addition, we found that nine patients (22.5%) complained of nausea/vomiting in the TENS group compared to thirteen patients (32.5%) in the fentanyl group (P = 0.31).

Conclusions

The findings indicated that TENS was not superior to fentanyl for pain relief in laparoscopic surgery. It seems that the correct use of TENS parameters might merit further investigation. This trial is registered with: IRCT2016031216765N3.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain

BACKGROUND

This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used by people to treat a variety of pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS, as a sole treatment, for acute pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 December 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and AMED. We also checked the reference lists of included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (< 12 weeks) if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Trials were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. We excluded trials on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews. Also we excluded trials investigating the effect of TENS on pain during childbirth (labour), primary dysmenorrhoea or dental procedures. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal trial design were excluded. We did not restrict any articles based on language of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and analyses of data. We extracted data on the following: types of participants and pain condition, trial design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. We contacted trial authors for additional information if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials in the original review (2009) and included no further trials in the first update (2011). An additional seven new trials met the inclusion criteria in this second update. In total, we included 19 RCTs involving 1346 participants at entry, with 11 trials awaiting classification either because the full text was unavailable or information in the full text failed to clarify eligibility. We excluded most trials because TENS was given in combination with another treatment as part of the formal study design or TENS was not delivered using appropriate TENS technique. The types of acute pain included in this Cochrane Review were procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions and rib fractures. We pooled data for pain intensity for six trials (seven comparisons) comparing TENS with placebo but the I(2) statistic suggested substantial heterogeneity. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 100 mm) was -24.62 mm (95% CI -31.79 to -17.46) in favour of TENS. Data for the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in pain was pooled for four trials (seven comparisons) and relative risk was 3.91 (95% CI 2.42 to 6.32) in favour of TENS over placebo. We pooled data for pain intensity from five trials (seven comparisons) but the I(2) statistic suggested considerable heterogeneity. MD was -19.05 mm (95% CI -27.30 to -10.79) in favour of TENS using a random-effects model. It was not possible to pool other data. There was a high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions. Seven trials reported minor adverse effects, such as mild erythema and itching underneath the electrodes and participants disliking TENS sensation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review update includes seven new trials, in addition to the 12 trials reviewed in the first update in 2011. The analysis provides tentative evidence that TENS reduces pain intensity over and above that seen with placebo (no current) TENS when administered as a stand-alone treatment for acute pain in adults. The high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions makes definitive conclusions impossible. There was incomplete reporting of treatment in many reports making replication of trials impossible.

Methodological quality in randomised controlled trials of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation for pain: low fidelity may explain negative findings

The benefits of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief have not been reliably established, as most systematic reviews find poor methodological quality in many studies. The paradox within the evidence base for TENS is that despite identified sources of bias that may lead to an overestimation of treatment effects, no benefits for TENS can be clearly demonstrated. Conventional assessments of quality assume a single direction of bias, and little work has been undertaken examining other directions of bias. Our hypothesis was that low fidelity in studies (bias leading to an underestimation of treatment effects) may account for inconclusive findings. We included 38 studies from 3 recently published Cochrane systematic reviews that examined TENS for acute, chronic, and cancer pain. We extracted data relating to treatment allocation, application of TENS and to the assessment of outcomes. We quantified these data and judged this against standardised assessment criteria using a "traffic light" approach based on the number of studies reaching the standard. We identified significant sources of potential bias in both directions in relation to study design and implementation fidelity that have not been quantified previously. Suboptimal dosing of TENS and inappropriate outcome assessment were particularly prevalent weaknesses indicating low fidelity. We propose criteria for judging directions of bias in future studies of TENS that may be adapted to assess other trials in which implementation fidelity is important, such as other nonpharmacological interventions for pain. Poor implementation fidelity was identified as a significant source of bias in systematic reviews of TENS studies and might explain lack of consistent treatment effects of TENS in pain. Here, criteria for assessing methodology are proposed for use in designing future clinical trials of TENS.

Pain relief by applying transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a noninvasive alternative to traditional pain treatments. TENS has been studied in the past as a pain reduction modality in colonoscopy with limited success. Reviews and meta-analysis have shown that the inconclusive results of TENS may be due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the difficulty in defining precise output parameters. The objective of this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the pain-relieving effect of a new application of TENS in unsedated screening colonoscopy. Ninety patients undergoing unsedated screening colonoscopy were randomly allocated to one of three groups: a control group (n=30), a group to receive active TENS (n=30), or a group to receive placebo TENS (n=30). A visual analogue scale (VAS) and a five-point Likert scale were used to assess pain 5 min into the procedure and at the end of the procedure. The patient's bloating sensation during colonoscopy and the effect on the duration of the procedure were also evaluated. Throughout the procedure, the active TENS group experienced a VAS pain score reduction ≥50% compared to the placebo TENS group (P<0.001) and the control group (P<0.001). On the five-point Likert scale, there was also a significant reduction in pain score in the active TENS group compared to the placebo TENS and control groups (P=0.009). No significant differences were found between the study groups as to the bloating sensation and the duration of the procedure. We conclude that TENS can be used as a pain relief therapy in unsedated screening colonoscopy.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

An investigation of the hypoalgesic effects of TENS delivered by a glove electrode

This randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study investigated the hypoalgesic effects of high-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) delivered via a glove electrode compared with standard self-adhesive electrodes. Fifty-six TENS-naïve, healthy individuals (18 to 50 years old; 28 men, 28 women) were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups (n = 14 per group): glove electrode; placebo TENS using a glove electrode; standard electrode; and no treatment control. Active TENS (continuous stimulus, 100 Hz, strong but comfortable intensity) was applied to the dominant forearm/hand for 30 minutes. Placebo TENS was applied using a burst stimulus, 100-Hz frequency, 5-second cycle time for 42 seconds, after which the current amplitude was automatically reset to 0 mA. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were recorded from 3 points on the dominant and nondominant upper limbs before and after TENS. Statistical analyses of dominant PPT data using between-within groups ANOVA showed significant differences between groups at all 3 recording points (P = .01). Post hoc Scheffe tests indicated no significant difference between the standard electrode and glove electrode groups. There was a significant hypoalgesic effect in the standard electrode group compared with the control group and between the glove electrode group and both the control and placebo TENS groups. There was no significant interactive effect between time and group at any of the recording points (P > .05).

PERSPECTIVE

This study presents a comparison of the hypoalgesic effects of 2 different types of TENS electrode, a novel glove electrode and standard self-adhesive rectangular electrodes. The glove electrode provides a larger contact area with the skin, thereby stimulating a greater number of nerve fibers. The results show that both electrodes have similar hypoalgesic effects and therefore give the clinician another choice in electrode.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used for the treatment of a variety of pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS for acute pain in adults to see if it had any clear analgesic effect in its own right.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; AMED; PEDro; OTseeker; OpenSIGLE; and, reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was undertaken in August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (less than 12 weeks) were included if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Studies were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. Studies on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews were excluded. Studies on TENS and labour pain, pain due to dental procedures and primary dysmenorrhoea were excluded. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal study design were also excluded. No restrictions were made regarding language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. Data were extracted on the following: types of participants and pain condition, study design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. Study authors were contacted for additional information if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 1479 studies identified in the search, 132 were identified as relevant. Of these, 116 were excluded; the vast majority of these were excluded due to TENS being given with another treatment. Four studies were categorised as awaiting classification as the information provided in the full text failed to clarify their eligibility. Twelve RCTs involving 919 participants at entry were included. The types of acute pain conditions included procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venipuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions, rib fractures. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to insufficient extractable data in the studies included in this review, we are unable to make any definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of TENS as an isolated treatment for acute pain in adults.