An experimental evaluation of the effects of transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TNS) and applied relaxation (AR) on hearing ability, tinnitus and dizziness in patients with Menière's disease

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the treatment efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in patients with tinnitus.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for the following concepts: "Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation" and "Tinnitus."

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion: 1) double- or single-blinded randomized controlled trials; 2) double- or single-blinded randomized comparison trials; 3) prospective or retrospective observational studies; and 4) case series. Exclusion: Non-English studies, nonhuman studies, case reports (n ≤ 5), and review articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and perceived tinnitus suppression after treatment. Additional data collected included tinnitus laterality, duration of symptoms, location of electrode placement, time to follow-up, etiology of tinnitus, and treatment side effects.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The literature search yielded 2941 unique articles. After reviewing 118 full-text articles, 17 studies reporting on 1,215 patients were included for final analysis. Four studies provided data available for meta-analysis of pre- and posttreatment THI and VAS (Cochrane Review Manager). TENS showed significant overall reduction on THI (-7.55 [-10.93 to -4.18], p < 0.0001) and VAS (-0.65 [-0.99 to -0.30], p < 0.0002). Subjective improvement of tinnitus was pooled across 13 studies using meta-analysis of proportions (MedCalc). Tinnitus suppression occurred in 40.0% [28.9-51.7%] patients. Among those who responded, 22.2% [12.2-29.7%] experienced complete suppression and 10.2% [0.2-31.9%] experienced persistent improvement at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

TENS represents a safe and feasible treatment option for tinnitus and might be a worthy consideration among the spectrum of interventions developed for tinnitus.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Ménière's Disease

OBJECTIVE

Ménière's disease (MD) is a clinical condition defined by spontaneous vertigo attacks (each lasting 20 minutes to 12 hours) with documented low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss in the affected ear before, during, or after one of the episodes of vertigo. It also presents with fluctuating aural symptoms (hearing loss, tinnitus, or ear fullness) in the affected ear. The underlying etiology of MD is not completely clear, yet it has been associated with inner ear fluid (endolymph) volume increases, culminating in episodic ear symptoms (vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness). Physical examination findings are often unremarkable, and audiometric testing may or may not show low- to midfrequency sensorineural hearing loss. Conventional imaging, if performed, is also typically normal. The goals of MD treatment are to prevent or reduce vertigo severity and frequency; relieve or prevent hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness; and improve quality of life. Treatment approaches to MD are many and typically include modifications of lifestyle factors (eg, diet) and medical, surgical, or a combination of therapies.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to improve the quality of the diagnostic workup and treatment outcomes of MD. To achieve this purpose, the goals of this guideline are to use the best available published scientific and/or clinical evidence to enhance diagnostic accuracy and appropriate therapeutic interventions (medical and surgical) while reducing unindicated diagnostic testing and/or imaging.

Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2007 and previously updated in 2011.Unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) can occur as a result of disease, trauma or postoperatively. The dysfunction is characterised by complaints of dizziness, visual or gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical manoeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in the adult, community-dwelling population of people with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The most recent search was 18 January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults living in the community, diagnosed with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. We sought comparisons of vestibular rehabilitation versus control (e.g. placebo), other treatment (non-vestibular rehabilitation, e.g. pharmacological) or another form of vestibular rehabilitation. Our primary outcome measure was change in the specified symptomatology (for example, proportion with dizziness resolved, frequency or severity of dizziness). Secondary outcomes were measures of function, quality of life and/or measure(s) of physiological status, where reproducibility has been confirmed and shown to be relevant or related to health status (for example, posturography), and adverse effects

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies involving 2441 participants with unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders in the review. Trials addressed the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation against control/sham interventions, medical interventions or other forms of vestibular rehabilitation. Non-blinding of outcome assessors and selective reporting were threats that may have biased the results in 25% of studies, but otherwise there was a low risk of selection or attrition bias.Individual and pooled analyses of the primary outcome, frequency of dizziness, showed a statistically significant effect in favour of vestibular rehabilitation over control or no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 3.86; four studies, 565 participants). Secondary outcomes measures related to levels of activity or participation measured, for example, with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, which also showed a strong trend towards significant differences between the groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.64). The exception to this was when movement-based vestibular rehabilitation was compared to physical manoeuvres for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49). There were no reported adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to strong evidence that vestibular rehabilitation is a safe, effective management for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction, based on a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence that vestibular rehabilitation resolves symptoms and improves functioning in the medium term. However, there is evidence that for the specific diagnostic group of BPPV, physical (repositioning) manoeuvres are more effective in the short term than exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation; although a combination of the two is effective for longer-term functional recovery. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of vestibular rehabilitation.

Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2007.Unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) can occur as a result of disease, trauma or postoperatively. The dysfunction is characterised by complaints of dizziness, visual or gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical manoeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation (VR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in the adult, community-dwelling population of people with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The most recent search was 1 July 2010, following a previous search in March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of adults living in the community, diagnosed with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. We sought comparisons of VR versus control (placebo etc.), other treatment (non-VR, e.g. pharmacological) or another form of VR. We considered the outcome measures of frequency and severity of dizziness or visual disturbance; changes in balance impairment, function or quality of life; and measure/s of physiological status with known functional correlation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials, involving 1668 participants, in the review. Trials addressed the effectiveness of VR against control/sham interventions, medical interventions or other forms of VR. Individual and pooled data showed a statistically significant effect in favour of VR over control or no intervention. The exception to this was when movement-based VR was compared to physical manoeuvres for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term. There were no reported adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to strong evidence that VR is a safe, effective management for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction, based on a number of high quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence that VR provides a resolution of symptoms and improvement in functioning in the medium term. However, there is evidence that for the specific diagnostic group of BPPV, physical (repositioning) manoeuvres are more effective in the short term than exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation; although a combination of the two is effective for longer-term functional recovery. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of VR.

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.

Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) can occur as a result of disease, trauma or post-operatively. The dysfunction is characterized by complaints of dizziness, visual or gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical manoeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation (VR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in the adult, community dwelling population of people with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search included the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 1 2007, MEDLINE (1950 to 2007) and EMBASE (1974 to 2007). The date of the last search was March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of adults living in the community, diagnosed with symptomatic unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. Comparisons sought were: Vestibular rehabilitation versus control (placebo etc.). Vestibular rehabilitation versus other treatment (non-vestibular rehabilitation e.g. pharmacological). Vestibular rehabilitation versus another form of vestibular rehabilitation. Outcome measures that were considered included: frequency and severity of dizziness or visual disturbance; changes in balance impairment, function or quality of life; measure/s of physiological status with known functional correlation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials were identified and eleven were excluded because of mixed/unclear vestibular pathology, leaving twenty-one trials in the review. Included studies addressed the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation against control/sham interventions, non-vestibular rehabilitation interventions or other forms of vestibular rehabilitation, by comparing the subjects in each group who had significant resolution of symptoms and/or improved function. Individual and pooled data showed a statistically significant effect in favour of the vestibular rehabilitation over control or no intervention. The exception to this was when movement based vestibular rehabilitation was compared to physical manoeuvres for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term. There were no reported adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to strong evidence that vestibular rehabilitation is a safe, effective management for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction, based on a number of high quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence that vestibular rehabilitation provides a resolution of symptoms in the medium term. However there is evidence that for the specific diagnostic group of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, physical (repositioning) manoeuvres are more effective in the short term than exercise based vestibular rehabilitation. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of vestibular rehabilitation.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is used in a variety of different clinical settings to treat a range of different acute and chronic pain conditions and has become popular with both patients and health professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of TENS in chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, CINAHL and The Oxford Pain Database were searched. Reference lists from retrieved reports and reviews were examined. Date of the most recent search: March 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were eligible if they included the following treatment comparisons: active TENS versus sham TENS controls active TENS versus no treatment controls active TENS versus active TENS controls (for instance High Frequency TENS vs Low Frequency TENS) Studies of patients suffering chronic pain for three months or more which included subjective outcome measures for pain intensity, or pain relief were eligible for evaluation in this review. No restrictions were made to language or sample size. Data from abstracts, letters, or unpublished studies, and studies of TENS in angina, headache and migraine, and dysmenorrhoea were not included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and summarised on the following items: patients and details of pain condition, study treatments, study duration, design, methods, subjective pain outcome measures, methodological quality, results for pain outcome measures and adverse effects, and the conclusions made by the authors of the original studies. Extracted data and methodological quality of each report was confirmed by at least three of the reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 107 reports identified from the searches, 88 were excluded as they did not fulfil the pre-defined entry criteria. Nineteen RCTs (from 18 reports) were evaluated. The included trials varied in terms of design, analgesic outcomes, chronic pain conditions, TENS treatments and overall methodological quality. Studies included single and multiple dose treatment comparisons of TENS. The studies were small. The reporting of the methods used and results for the analgesic outcomes were generally poor. TENS treatments and controls were often poorly defined. Few studies evaluated the long-term analgesic effectiveness of TENS and single dose evaluations of TENS are unhelpful in making clinical decisions of the long-term effectiveness of TENS in the management of chronic pain. Meta-analysis was not possible. Overall in 10 of 15 inactive control studies there was a positive analgesic outcome in favour of the active TENS treatments. For the multiple dose treatment comparison studies only three of seven were considered to be in favour of the active TENS treatments. For the active controlled studies, seven studies made direct comparisons between HFTENS and LFTENS. Five of seven studies could find no difference in terms of analgesic efficacy between HFTENS and LFTENS at any time point.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review are inconclusive; the published trials do not provide information on the stimulation parameters which are most likely to provide optimum pain relief, nor do they answer questions about long-term effectiveness. Large multi-centre randomised controlled trials of TENS in chronic pain are urgently needed.