Effect of transcutaneous electrical stimulation on nociception and edema induced by peripheral serotonin

Comparative Analysis of High-Frequency and Low-Frequency Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation of the Right Median Nerve in the Regression of Clinical and Neurophysiological Manifestations of Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Background/Objectives: The anxiolytic effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is associated with the activation of endogenous inhibitory mechanisms in the central nervous system. Both low-frequency, high-amplitude TENS (LF-TENS) and high-frequency, low-amplitude TENS (HF-TENS) are capable of activating opioid, GABA, serotonin, muscarinic, and cannabinoid receptors. However, there has been no comparative analysis of the effectiveness of HF-TENS and LF-TENS in the treatment of GAD. The purpose of our research was to study the effectiveness of direct HF-TENS and LF-TENS of the right median nerve in the treatment of patients with GAD compared with sham TENS. Methods: The effectiveness of direct HF-TENS and LF-TENS of the right median nerve in the treatment of GAD was studied using Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). 40 patients underwent sham TENS, 40 patients passed HF-TENS (50 Hz-50 μs-sensory response) and 41 patients completed LF -TENS (1 Hz-200 μs-motor response) for 30 days daily. After completion of treatment, half of the patients received weekly maintenance therapy for 6 months. Electroencephalography was performed before and after treatment. Results: Our study showed that a significant reduction in the clinical symptoms of GAD as assessed by GAD-7 and HAM-A was observed after HF-TENS and LF-TENS by an average of 42.4%, and after sham stimulation only by 13.5% for at least 2 months after the end of treatment. However, LF-TENS turned out to be superior in effectiveness to HF-TENS by 51% and only on electroencephalography leads to an increase in PSD for the alpha rhythm in the occipital regions by 24% and a decrease in PSD for the beta I rhythm in the temporal and frontal regions by 28%. The prolonged effect of HF-TENS and LF-TENS was maintained without negative dynamics when TENS treatment was continued weekly throughout the entire six-month observation period. Conclusions: A prolonged anxiolytic effect of direct TENS of the right median nerve has been proven with greater regression of clinical and neurophysiological manifestations of GAD after LF-TENS compared to HF-TENS. Minimal side effects, low cost, safety, and simplicity of TENS procedures are appropriate as a home treatment modality.

Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation in Animal Model Studies: From Neural Mechanisms to Biological Effects for Analgesia

OBJECTIVE

This systematic and meta-analysis review evaluated the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)-induced action mechanisms for animal analgesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent investigators identified relevant articles published until February 2021 through a literature review, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the results.

RESULTS

Of the 6984 studies found in the data base search, 53 full-text articles were selected and used in the systematic review. Most studies used Sprague Dawley rats (66.03%). High-frequency TENS was applied to at least one group in 47 studies, and most applications were performed for 20 minutes (64.15%). Mechanical hyperalgesia was analyzed as the primary outcome in 52.83% of the studies and thermal hyperalgesia in 23.07% of studies using a heated surface. More than 50% of the studies showed a low risk of bias on allocation concealment, random housing, selective outcome reporting, and acclimatization before the behavioral tests. Blinding was not performed in only one study and random outcome assessment in another study; acclimatization before the behavioral tests was not performed in just one study. Many studies had an uncertain risk of bias. Meta-analyses indicated no difference between low-frequency and high-frequency TENS with variations among the pain models.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that TENS has presented a substantial scientific foundation for its hypoalgesic effect in preclinical studies for analgesia.

Should Non-Pharmacological and Non-Surgical Interventions be Used to Manage Neuropathic Pain in Adults With Spinal Cord Injury? - A Systematic Review

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) results in a permanent or temporary alteration of the motor, sensory and/or autonomic functions, frequently leading to neuropathic pain. To deal with this comorbidity, several non-pharmacological and non-surgical (NP-NS) interventions have been developed. However, their efficacy is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically synthetize the available evidence assessing the efficacy of NP-NS interventions for treating neuropathic pain in people with SCI. Thus, an electronic search was conducted in five databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science and EBSCO) and trials registry databases, in addition to a manual search strategy to retrieve additional records. The review included randomized controlled trials with adults with SCI, in any stage of the condition. Data on the efficacy of the interventions was narratively synthetized. Once the research was completed, of 4853 identified references, 24 were included with a total of 653 participants with SCI and neuropathic pain, mostly male and with paraplegia. These studies investigated the effect of 13 types of NP-NS interventions with different protocols and methodological limitations. Seven different assessment scales were analyzed, with neuropathic pain being the primary outcome in 21 studies. Such high heterogeneity impaired the conduction of meta-analysis for any of the interventions. Although promising results were found regarding analgesic effect of NP-NS on neuropathic pain in people with SCI, it is not yet possible to safely state that these interventions are in fact effective. Further studies with homogeneous protocols and methodological quality are still needed. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a review of existing studies on the effectiveness of NP-NS interventions in neuropathic pain in SCI. This synthesis could potentially alert and motivate clinicians to develop studies on this topic, so that interventions can be objectively evaluated and recommendations for an evidence-based practice be created.

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Rodent Models of Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-Analysis

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-invasive therapeutic intervention that is typically used for many years to treat chronic pain in patients who are refractory to pain medications. However, evidence of the efficacy of TENS treatment for neuropathic pain is lacking in humans. To further understand the efficacy of TENS under various intervention conditions and illuminate the current circumstance and future research directions, we systematically reviewed animal studies investigating the efficacy of TENS in relieving pain in neuropathic pain rodent models. We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Web of Science and identified 11 studies. Two meta-analyses were performed. The first meta-analysis showed that a single TENS treatment was capable of temporarily ameliorating neuropathic pain when compared to control groups with a significant effect (standardized mean difference: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.65, 2.42; p = 0.0007; I² = 58%). Significant temporary alleviation in neuropathic pain intensity was also observed in the meta-analysis of repetitive TENS (standardized mean difference: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.40; p = 0.002; I² = 75%). Subgroup analysis showed no effect of the timing of the application of TENS (test for subgroup difference, p = 0.47). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses suggested that no single study had an outsized effect on the pooled estimates, which may partly prove the robustness of these findings. Other stratified analyses were prevented by the insufficient number of included studies. Overall, current data suggest that TENS might be a promising therapy to ameliorate neuropathic pain. However, the high risk of bias in the included studies suggests that cautions must be considered when interpreting these findings and it is not reasonable to directly generalize the results obtained from animal studies to clinical practice. Future studies should pay more attention to improving the quality of study design and reporting, thereby facilitating the understanding of mechanisms underlying TENS treatment, reducing more potentially unsuccessful clinical trials, and optimizing the efficacy of TENS for people with neuropathic pain.

Nonsurgical Approaches to Neuroma Management

Symptomatic neuromas and chronic neuropathic pain are significant problems affecting patients' quality of life and independence that are challenging to treat. These symptoms are due to structural and functional changes that occur peripherally within neuromas, as well as alterations that occur centrally within the brain and spinal cord. A multimodal approach is most effective, with goals to minimize opioid use, to capitalize on the synergistic effects of nonopioid medications and to explore potential benefits of novel adjunctive treatments.

The effect of tens for pain relief in women with primary dysmenorrhea: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) is a chronic health condition that affects primarily young women and interferes with daily activities, causes loss of work productivity, and reduces quality of life. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a complementary and alternative therapy used to reduce pain related to PD. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TENS in the treatment of pain in women with PD.

METHODS

A search of the English literature in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (EBSCO), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), CINAHL (EBSCO), PUBMED, OVID, Science Direct, Scopus, Academic Search Complete databases was conducted using combinations of the following search terms: 'primary dysmenorrhea', 'pain', 'transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation', 'TENS', and 'electrical stimulation'. All content from database inception through April 2020 was included in the search.

RESULTS

The initial search strategy based on date range and language yielded 571 relevant records and 4 of them were about both TENS and PD. A total of 260 patients were enrolled in the included studies. In all of the included studies, the comparison intervention consisted of sham TENS. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Our analysis indicated that TENS was statistically more effective than sham TENS in reducing PD-related pain (SMD=1.384; 95% CI=0.505, 2.262; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

TENS is a safe and well-tolerated electrophysical therapy that may be effective for relieving pain in PD.

Effectiveness of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of percutaneous electrical stimulation (PENS) alone or as an adjunct with other interventions on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials where at least one group received any form of PENS for musculoskeletal condition. Studies had to include humans and collect outcomes on pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included and included heterogeneous musculoskeletal conditions with short- or midterm follow-ups. PENS alone had a large effect (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.79) on pain and a small effect (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.06) on related disability at short-term as compared with sham. A moderate effect of PENS alone (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.19) on pain when compared with other interventions was observed. The inclusion of PENS with other interventions had a moderate effect for decreasing pain at short- (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.37) and midterm (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.27). No effect at midterm (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10) on related disability was seen. The risk of bias was generally low; but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is low level of evidence suggesting the effects of PENS alone or in combination for pain, but not related disability, in musculoskeletal pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1a. Registration number: CRD42019131331.

SIGNIFICANCE

This meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of PENS for the management of pain and related disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions found that PENS could decrease level of pain intensity but not relateddisability in musculoskeletal pain disorders.

Comparative Study of Pain Relief in Two Non-Pharmacological Treatments in Patients with Partial Rotator Cuff Tears: A Randomized Trial

Background

Pain induction is the primary characteristic of a rotator cuff tear while muscle weakness appears as a secondary feature, leading to further disability.

Objectives

The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic interventions through transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or microcurrent electrical nerve stimulation (MENS) in conjunction with kinesiotherapy in patients with partial thickness rotator cuff tear.

Methods

This was a blinded randomized prospective study. The study recruited 42 outpatients with partial rotator cuff tear under conservative treatment selected from the 401 General Military Hospital of Athens and the University General Hospital ‘Attikon’ during 2015 - 2017. Patients were assessed for pain and disability using the SPADI (shoulder pain and disability index), a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, and the EuroQoL-5 questionnaire for the evaluation of the quality of life. The first group received TENS and kinesiotherapy while the second group received MENS and kinesiotherapy. Three measurements were recorded. The first assessment was performed during the initial patient visit; the second after completion of the physiotherapeutic sessions, and the third one three months after the initial assessment. A follow-up ultrasound scan was performed three months after the completion of the therapeutic sessions to assess the anatomical healing of the rotator cuff tear.

Results

Repeated measurements analysis indicated a significant improvement in pain scores, functionality, and patients’ quality of life (P value < 0.001). Comparison of the two treatment methods did not reveal any significant differences (P value > 0.05) despite the fact that the MENS was associated with a greater improvement in pain intensity and TENS with a greater improvement in functionality and quality of life.

Conclusions

Using MENS and TENS appears to be equally effective in terms of pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life enhancement in patients.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.

METHODS

Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.

METHODS

Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Effect of TENS on Postoperative Pain and Pulmonary Function in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of electrical nerve stimulation on pain intensity and pulmonary function in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized clinical trial, a total of 100 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery at Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from February to May 2014, were divided into two groups. In the intervention group (n = 50), patients received routine care along with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) immediately after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). In the placebo group (n = 50), patients only received routine care. The pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) every 6 hours for 72 hours after surgery in two conditions of rest and coughing. Pulmonary function was assessed through forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced volume capacity (FVC) at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Age, gender, body mass index, narcotic consumption, ICU length of stay, and requests for chest radiographs were recorded. The statistical level of significance was set at p < .05.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, and body mass index (p > .05). Pain intensity was significantly lower in the TENS group than the placebo group in both resting and coughing condition (p < .05). FVC and FEV1 were significantly better and faster in the TENS group than in the placebo group at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery (p < .05). Patients in the TENS group had significantly lower narcotic use and requests for chest radiographs compared with placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

TENS may reduce postoperative pain in resting and coughing conditions, improve pulmonary function, and reduce narcotic use in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.

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.

Comparative effects of the ω3 polyunsaturated fatty acid derivatives resolvins E1 and D1 and protectin DX in models of inflammation and pain

Purpose

Specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators (SPMs), also known as lipoxins, resolvins (Rvs), protectins and maresins, have been implicated in the resolution of the inflammatory process. However, a systematic comparison of their activity in the relief of inflammation and pain models is still lacking.

Materials and methods

The effects of Rvs E1 and D1 and protectin DX (PDX) were assessed in rat paws inflamed by the standard proinflammatory stimulus carrageenan or by histamine, 5-hydroxytryptamine, substance P or prostaglandin E₂. The experimental outcomes were the mechanical nociceptive threshold and increase in paw volume as a measure of pain and edema formation, respectively. The analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities of the indicated SPMs were also compared with nonsteroidal (indomethacin and celecoxib) and steroidal (dexamethasone) anti-inflammatory drugs.

Results

Only RvE1 and RvD1 presented analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities in the carrageenan model, and RvE1 was twice as potent as RvD1. Both substances tended to be better analgesics than anti-inflammatory agents, with a modeling profile similar to steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, proinflammatory effects (edema formation) were also detected when the mediators histamine, 5-hydroxytryptamine or substance P replaced carrageenan as the proinflammatory stimuli. The analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of resolvins were specifically prevented by an antagonist of the leukotriene B₄ receptor 1 (BLT1).

Conclusion

Rvs, as analgesic agents, may be better therapeutic agents than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the current choice in the relief of pain of an inflammatory origin. However, the possibility of developing adverse effects cannot be overlooked.

Serotonin enhances urinary bladder nociceptive processing via a 5-HT3 receptor mechanism

Serotonin from the descending pain modulatory pathway is critical to nociceptive processing. Its effects on pain modulation may either be inhibitory or facilitatory, depending on the type of pain and which receptors are involved. Little is known about the role of serotonergic systems in bladder nociceptive processing. These studies examined the effect of systemic administration of the serotonin precursor, 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), on normal bladder and somatic sensation in rats. ELISA was used to quantify peripheral and central changes in serotonin and its major metabolite following 5-HTP administration, and the potential role of the 5-HT3 receptor on changes in bladder sensation elicited by 5-HTP was investigated. 5-HTP produced bladder hypersensitivity and somatic analgesia. The pro-nociceptive effect of 5-HTP was attenuated by intrathecal, but not systemic, ondansetron. Peripheral increases in serotonin, its metabolism and rate of turnover were detectable within 30min of 5-HTP administration. Significant enhancement of serotonin metabolism was observed centrally. These findings suggest that 5-HTP increases serotonin, which may then affect descending facilitatory systems to produce bladder hypersensitivity via activation of spinal 5-HT3 receptors.

Application of low frequency and medium frequency currents in the management of acute and chronic pain-a narrative review

Trancutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential therapy (IFT) have been a regular line of treatment for various types of acute and chronic pain. This review aims to compile the latest literature in pain management using these modalities which use low-frequency and medium-frequency currents. The Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched and studies were examined from their inception till October 2013. After title and abstract screening the relevant studies were included for this review. We found through this review that even though TENS and IFT are used in management of pain, there is limited amount of high quality research available in this area. Most of the studies lack methodological quality and have a low sample size.

Using TENS for pain control: the state of the evidence

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a nonpharmacological intervention that activates a complex neuronal network to reduce pain by activating descending inhibitory systems in the central nervous system to reduce hyperalgesia. The evidence for TENS efficacy is conflicting and requires not only description but also critique. Population-specific systemic reviews and meta-analyses are emerging, indicating both HF and LF TENS being shown to provide analgesia, specifically when applied at a strong, nonpainful intensity. The purpose of this article is to provide a critical review of the latest basic science and clinical evidence for TENS. Additional research is necessary to determine if TENS has effects specific to mechanical stimuli and/or beyond reduction of pain and will improve activity levels, function and quality of life.

The New Portable Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Device Was Efficacious in the Control of Primary Dysmenorrhea Cramp Pain

INTRODUCTION

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an established method for pain relief in dysmenorrhea. A feasible advantage would be the study of a portable device. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a new portable TENS device (TANYX®) for menstruation cramps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty women were evaluated in a double-blind, prospective, randomized fashion, divided into sham and active groups. TENS was applied medially at the suprapubic region, for 30-min duration at eight-hour intervals, up to seven days. The placebo group (PG) received sham device. The TENS group (TG) applied an active 85 Hz frequency TENS. Efficacy measures were pain relief evaluated on a visual analog scale (VAS) and diclofenac intake, and quality of life represented by: 1) capacity to get out of the bed, 2) food or drink intake, 3) missing routine daily activities such as work or school, and 4) quality of sleep.

RESULTS

The active TENS device induced a prompt onset of pain relief in a strictly segmental manner nearby the dermatomes where the TENS was applied at the skin, and there was a drop in mean pain score from 8 to 2 cm (p < 0.001). Diclofenac consumption was also significantly reduced (p < 0.01), compared with the PG. Quality of life improved significantly in TG when compared with PG (p < 0.05). Three months after the beginning of the study, 14/20 of the women were still using the active device regularly. No adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The portable, disposable, active TENS device induced a prompt onset of pain relief and improved the quality of life, without adverse effects, in patients with painful cramps associated with dysmenorrhea.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2013

This paper is the thirty-sixth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2013 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.