Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020. ELIG...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnson, Mark I., Paley, Carole A., Jones, Gareth, Mulvey, Matthew R., Wittkopf, Priscilla G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051073
_version_ 1784651617286488064
author Johnson, Mark I.
Paley, Carole A.
Jones, Gareth
Mulvey, Matthew R.
Wittkopf, Priscilla G.
author_facet Johnson, Mark I.
Paley, Carole A.
Jones, Gareth
Mulvey, Matthew R.
Wittkopf, Priscilla G.
author_sort Johnson, Mark I.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or >50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain. RESULTS: The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=−0·96 (95% CI −1·14 to –0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = −0·72 (95% CI −0·95 to –0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125054.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8845179
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88451792022-03-01 Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study) Johnson, Mark I. Paley, Carole A. Jones, Gareth Mulvey, Matthew R. Wittkopf, Priscilla G. BMJ Open Complementary Medicine OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or >50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain. RESULTS: The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=−0·96 (95% CI −1·14 to –0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = −0·72 (95% CI −0·95 to –0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125054. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8845179/ /pubmed/35144946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051073 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Complementary Medicine
Johnson, Mark I.
Paley, Carole A.
Jones, Gareth
Mulvey, Matthew R.
Wittkopf, Priscilla G.
Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title_full Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title_short Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study)
title_sort efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (tens) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-tens study)
topic Complementary Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051073
work_keys_str_mv AT johnsonmarki efficacyandsafetyoftranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensforacuteandchronicpaininadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof381studiesthemetatensstudy
AT paleycarolea efficacyandsafetyoftranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensforacuteandchronicpaininadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof381studiesthemetatensstudy
AT jonesgareth efficacyandsafetyoftranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensforacuteandchronicpaininadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof381studiesthemetatensstudy
AT mulveymatthewr efficacyandsafetyoftranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensforacuteandchronicpaininadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof381studiesthemetatensstudy
AT wittkopfpriscillag efficacyandsafetyoftranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensforacuteandchronicpaininadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof381studiesthemetatensstudy