Comparison of Stochastic vs. Conventional Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Patients with Electromyographically Documented Radiculopathy

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE

To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval  -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.

TENS Improves Cisplatin-Induced Neuropathy in Lung Cancer Patients

Background: Cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of cisplatin therapy, which develops in most patients with lung cancer. There are no effective preventive measures and once it occurs there is no effective therapy, except symptomatic. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapy on the pain intensity and the quality of life of patients with cisplatin-induced neuropathy. Material and Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed from 2013 to 2018, at the Clinical Center of Serbia. After the initial evaluation of 106 newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, 68 patients did not have peripheral neuropathy. These 68 patients continued in the study and started the cisplatin chemotherapy. Forty of these patients developed cisplatin-induced neuropathy, which was manifested by neuropathic symptoms and proven by ENG examination. All patients with cisplatin-induced neuropathy were treated with TENS therapy. Their neuropathic pain and quality of life were evaluated using the following questionnaires at diagnosis, after cisplatin therapy and after four weeks of TENS use: DN4, VAS scale, EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-L. Results: Two thirds (68%) of the patients with cisplatin-induced neuropathy were male and the majority were smokers (70%). Adenocarcinoma was the most common (38%), followed by squamous (33%) and small-cell carcinoma (28%). The application of TENS therapy had a positive effect on reducing the neuropathic pain and increasing the quality of life for patients with painful cisplatin-induced neuropathy. The VAS and DN4 scores significantly decreased after TENS therapy, in comparison to its values after cisplatin therapy (p < 0.001). After TENS therapy, patients had significantly higher values in most of the domains of EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT- L, in comparison with the values after cisplatin therapy (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The application of TENS therapy has a positive effect on reducing neuropathic pain and increasing the quality of life for patients with lung cancer and cisplatin-induced neuropathy.

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.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition, affecting 10% to 24% of the general population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the noninvasive, transcutaneous use of electrical stimulation to produce analgesia. It is a simple, low-cost and safe intervention used in clinical practice as an adjunct treatment for painful musculoskeletal conditions that have a considerable impact on daily activities, such as chronic neck pain. This review is a split from a Cochrane Review on electrotherapy for neck pain, published in 2013, and focuses specifically on TENS for chronic neck pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (alone or in association with other interventions) compared with sham and other clinical interventions for the treatment of chronic neck pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Back and Neck Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers to 9 November 2018. We also screened the reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional trials. There were no language, source, or publication date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥ 18 years of age) with chronic neck pain (lasting > 12 weeks) that compared TENS alone or in combination with other treatments versus active or inactive treatments. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors selected the trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A third review author was consulted in case of disagreements. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (adapted by Cochrane Back and Neck), to assess the risk of bias of individual trials and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We used risk ratios (RRs) to measure treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with a total of 651 participants, mean age 31.7 to 55.5 years, conducted in three different countries (Turkey, Jordan and China). The length of follow-up ranged from one week to six months. Most RCTs used continuous TENS, with a frequency of 60 Hz to 100 Hz, pulse width of 40 μs to 250 μs and tolerable intensity, described as a tingling sensation without contraction, in daily sessions lasting 20 to 60 minutes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, we did not pool individual study data into meta-analyses. Overall, we judged most studies as being at low risk for selection bias and high risk for performance and detection bias. Based on the GRADE approach, there was very low-certainty evidence from two trials about the effects of conventional TENS when compared to sham TENS at short-term (up to 3 months after treatment) follow-up, on pain (assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.77) and the percentage of participants presenting improvement of pain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.92). None of the included studies reported on disability or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found very low-certainty evidence of a difference between TENS compared to sham TENS on reducing neck pain; therefore, we are unsure about the effect estimate. At present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the use of TENS in patients with chronic neck pain. Additional well-designed, -conducted and -reported RCTs are needed to reach robust conclusions.

Evaluation of different doses of transcutaneous nerve stimulation for pain relief during labour: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain during labour is one of the most intense pain that women may experience in their lifetime. There are several non-pharmacological analgesic methods to relieve pain during labour, among them transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). TENS is a low-frequency electrotherapy technique, analgesic type, generally used in musculoskeletal pathology, but it has also come to be used as an alternative treatment during labour. The purpose of this study is to investigate the pain-relieving effect of a TENS application during labour and to find out the most effective dose.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. TENS therapy was initiated at the beginning of the active phase of labour. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups (21 per group: two active TENS and one placebo). Active TENS 1 intervention consisted in a constant frequency of 100-Hz, 100-μs, active TENS 2 intervention consisted in a varying high-frequency (80-100 Hz), 350 μs, and in a placebo group, participants were connected to the TENS unit without electrical stimulation. TENS was applied with two self-adhesive electrodes placed parallel to the spinal cord (T10-L1 and S2-S4 levels). The primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10 cm) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at several stages (at baseline and at 10 and 30 min later). Secondary outcomes included women's satisfaction (via the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction scale).

RESULTS

Sixty-three women participated. Regarding baseline characteristics, no differences were found among the three groups. The active TENS 2 group obtained an improvement with clinically significant VAS results (- 2.9, 95% confidence interval - 4.1 to - 1.6, p <  0.001). Regarding satisfaction, the results also revealed better results in the active TENS than in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

TENS with high frequencies modified in time as well as high pulse width are effective for relieving labour pain, and they are well considered by pregnant participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03137251 . Registered on 2 May 2017.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Effect of remote sensory noise on hand function post stroke

Hand motor impairment persists after stroke. Sensory inputs may facilitate recovery of motor function. This pilot study tested the effectiveness of tactile sensory noise in improving hand motor function in chronic stroke survivors with tactile sensory deficits, using a repeated measures design. Sensory noise in the form of subthreshold, white noise, mechanical vibration was applied to the wrist skin during motor tasks. Hand dexterity assessed by the Nine Hole Peg Test and the Box and Block Test and pinch strength significantly improved when the sensory noise was turned on compared with when it was turned off in chronic stroke survivors. The subthreshold sensory noise to the wrist appears to induce improvements in hand motor function possibly via neuronal connections in the sensoriomotor cortex. The approach of applying concomitant, unperceivable mechanical vibration to the wrist during hand motor tasks is easily adoptable for clinic use as well as unsupervised home use. This pilot study suggests a potential for a wristband-type assistive device to complement hand rehabilitation for stroke survivors with sensorimotor deficit.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of painful conditions: focus on neuropathic pain

The management of neuropathic pain is challenging, with medication being the first-line treatment. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an inexpensive, noninvasive, self-administered technique that is used as an adjunct to medication. Clinical experience suggests that TENS is beneficial providing it is administered at a sufficiently strong intensity, close to the site of pain. At present, there are too few randomized controlled trials on TENS for neuropathic pain to judge effectiveness. The findings of systematic reviews of TENS for other pain syndromes are inconclusive because trials have a low fidelity associated with inadequate TENS technique and infrequent treatments of insufficient duration. The use of electrode arrays to spatially target stimulation more precisely may improve the efficacy of TENS in the future.

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.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as a therapeutic adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite widespread use, its effectiveness in chronic low-back pain (LBP) is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether TENS is more effective than placebo for the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CINAHL were searched up to July 19, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TENS to placebo in patients with chronic LBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. If quantitative meta-analysis was not possible, a qualitative synthesis was performed, taking into consideration 5 levels of evidence as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

Four high-quality RCTs (585 patients) met the selection criteria. Clinical heterogeneity prevented the use of meta-analysis. Therefore, a qualitative synthesis was completed. There was conflicting evidence about whether TENS was beneficial in reducing back pain intensity and consistent evidence in two trials (410 patients) that it did not improve back-specific functional status. There was moderate evidence that work status and the use of medical services did not change with treatment. Conflicting results were obtained from two studies regarding generic health status, with one study showing no improvement on the modified Sickness Impact Profile and another study showing significant improvements on several, but not all subsections of the SF-36 questionnaire. Multiple physical outcome measures lacked statistically significant improvement relative to placebo. In general, patients treated with acupuncture-like TENS responded similarly to those treated with conventional TENS. However, in two of the trials, an inadequate stimulation intensity was used for acupuncture-like TENS, given that muscle twitching was not induced. Optimal treatment schedules could not be reliably determined based on the available data. Adverse effects included minor skin irritation at the site of electrode placement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At this time, the evidence from the small number of placebo-controlled trials does not support the use of TENS in the routine management of chronic LBP. Further research is encouraged.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a popular pain treatment modality but its effectiveness in chronic pain management is unknown. This review is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of TENS in chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched. Reference lists from retrieved reports and reviews were examined. Date of the most recent search: April 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were eligible if they compared active TENS versus sham TENS controls; active TENS versus 'no treatment' controls; or active TENS versus active TENS controls (e.g. High Frequency TENS (HFTENS) versus Low Frequency TENS (LFTENS)). Studies of chronic pain for three months or more which included subjective outcome measures for pain intensity or relief were eligible for evaluation. No restrictions were made to language or sample size. Abstracts, letters, or unpublished studies, and studies of TENS in angina, headache, migraine, dysmenorrhoea and cancer-related pain were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and summarised on the following items: patients and details of pain condition, treatments, study duration, design, methods, subjective pain outcome measures, methodological quality, results for pain outcome measures and adverse effects, and conclusions by authors of the studies. Extracted data and methodological quality of studies were confirmed by the review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 124 studies identified from the searches, 99 did not fulfil pre-defined entry criteria. Twenty-five RCTs involving 1281 participants were evaluated. Included studies varied in design, analgesic outcomes, chronic pain conditions, TENS treatments and methodological quality. The reporting of methods and results for analgesic outcomes were inconsistent across studies and generally poor. Meta-analysis was not possible. Overall in 13 of 22 inactive control studies, there was a positive analgesic outcome in favour of active TENS treatments. For multiple dose treatment comparison studies, eight of fifteen were considered to be in favour of the active TENS treatments. Seven of the nine active controlled studies found no difference in analgesic efficacy between High Frequency (HF) TENS and Low Frequency (LF) TENS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, new relevant studies have not provided additional information to change the conclusions. Published literature on the subject lacks the methodological rigour or robust reporting needed to make confident assessments of the role of TENS in chronic pain management. Large multi-centre RCTs of TENS in chronic pain are still needed.

EFNS guidelines on neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain

Pharmacological relief of neuropathic pain is often insufficient. Electrical neurostimulation is efficacious in chronic neuropathic pain and other neurological diseases. European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) launched a Task Force to evaluate the evidence for these techniques and to produce relevant recommendations. We searched the literature from 1968 to 2006, looking for neurostimulation in neuropathic pain conditions, and classified the trials according to the EFNS scheme of evidence for therapeutic interventions. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is efficacious in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I (level B recommendation). High-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may be better than placebo (level C) although worse than electro-acupuncture (level B). One kind of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has transient efficacy in central and peripheral neuropathic pains (level B). Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is efficacious in central post-stroke and facial pain (level C). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) should only be performed in experienced centres. Evidence for implanted peripheral stimulations is inadequate. TENS and r-TMS are non-invasive and suitable as preliminary or add-on therapies. Further controlled trials are warranted for SCS in conditions other than failed back surgery syndrome and CRPS and for MCS and DBS in general. These chronically implanted techniques provide satisfactory pain relief in many patients, including those resistant to medication or other means.

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for the Management of Neuropathic Pain: The Effects of Frequency and Electrode Position on Prevention of Allodynia in a Rat Model of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II

Background and Purpose. Complex regional pain syndrome type II (CPSII) is a painful condition that develops following a nerve injury. Although transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) relieves the pain of CPSII, the stimulation parameters that would best prevent the development of the condition are not known. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of several different stimulation strategies to reduce the development of allodynia. Subjects. Sprague-Dawley rats were used in the study. Methods. A chronic constriction injury (CCI) to the right sciatic nerve was used to induce allodynia. Two groups of CCI rats received high-frequency TENS to the lumbar paravertebral region with electrodes positioned on the skin overlying either the right or left paraspinal musculature. Two additional groups of CCI rats received low-frequency TENS to acupuncture points in the right or left hind limbs. A fifth group of CCI rats received no TENS intervention. Thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were assessed in the right hind paw before and 12 days after the CCI surgery. The TENS was delivered 1 hour per day beginning on the day of surgery. Results. Daily high-frequency TENS reduced the development of mechanical allodynia in CCI rats, and low-frequency TENS reduced the development of thermal allodynia, but only when TENS was delivered on the left side. Discussion and Conclusion. The results indicate that TENS delivered contralateral to a nerve injury best reduces allodynia development. Comprehensive reduction of allodynia development would require a combination of high- and low-frequency TENS intervention.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the management of chronic LBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chronic low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. TENS was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to pharmacologic pain management. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), up to April 1, 2005. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. Standardized mean differences were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

RESULTS

Two RCTs (175 patients) were included. They differed with respect to study design, methodologic quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, characteristics of TENS application, treatment schedule, cointerventions, and measured outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Preplanned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations, and baseline patient characteristics were not possible because of the small number of included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the efficacy of TENS as an isolated intervention in the management of chronic LBP is limited and inconsistent. Larger, multicenter, RCTs are needed to better resolve its role in this condition. Increased attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low back pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low-back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS in the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PEDro up to April 1, 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

The only two RCTs (175 patients) meeting eligibility criteria differed in study design, methodological quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type and method of TENS application, treatment schedule, co-interventions and final outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Pre-planned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations and baseline patient characteristics were not possible due to the small number of included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistent evidence to support the use of TENS as a single treatment in the management of chronic LBP. Larger, multi-center, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the true effectiveness of TENS. Special attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low-back pain.