Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Treating Chronic Back Pain

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

2 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Background and Objectives This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to a control and to other nerve stimulation therapies (NSTs) for the treatment of chronic back pain. Methods Citations were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2014 using the following keywords: nerve stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, back pain, chronic pain. Control treatments included sham, placebo, or medication only. Other NSTs included electroacupuncture, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials including 700 patients were included in the analysis. The efficacy of TENS was similar to that of control treatment for providing pain relief (standardized difference in means [SDM] = -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.18; P = 0.293). Other types of NSTs were more effective than TENS in providing pain relief (SDM = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.15-1.57; P = 0.017). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was more effective than control treatment in improving functional disability only in patients with follow-up of less than 6 weeks (SDM = -1.24; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.65; P < 0.001). There was no difference in functional disability outcomes between TENS and other NSTs. Conclusions These results suggest that TENS does not improve symptoms of lower back pain, but may offer short-term improvement of functional disability.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)425-433
頁數9
期刊Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
43
發行號4
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 五月 1 2018

指紋

Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Back Pain
Chronic Pain
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals
Randomized Controlled Trials
Placebos
Electroacupuncture
Pain
Low Back Pain
MEDLINE
Libraries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

引用此文

@article{f2fedad386e1441fa4faa9d7e82efb3b,
title = "Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Treating Chronic Back Pain",
abstract = "Background and Objectives This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to a control and to other nerve stimulation therapies (NSTs) for the treatment of chronic back pain. Methods Citations were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2014 using the following keywords: nerve stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, back pain, chronic pain. Control treatments included sham, placebo, or medication only. Other NSTs included electroacupuncture, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials including 700 patients were included in the analysis. The efficacy of TENS was similar to that of control treatment for providing pain relief (standardized difference in means [SDM] = -0.20; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.18; P = 0.293). Other types of NSTs were more effective than TENS in providing pain relief (SDM = 0.86; 95{\%} CI, 0.15-1.57; P = 0.017). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was more effective than control treatment in improving functional disability only in patients with follow-up of less than 6 weeks (SDM = -1.24; 95{\%} CI, -1.83 to -0.65; P < 0.001). There was no difference in functional disability outcomes between TENS and other NSTs. Conclusions These results suggest that TENS does not improve symptoms of lower back pain, but may offer short-term improvement of functional disability.",
author = "Wu, {Lien Chen} and Weng, {Pei Wei} and Chen, {Chia Hsien} and Huang, {Yi You} and Tsuang, {Yang Hwei} and Chiang, {Chang Jung}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AAP.0000000000000740",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "425--433",
journal = "Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine",
issn = "1098-7339",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Treating Chronic Back Pain

AU - Wu, Lien Chen

AU - Weng, Pei Wei

AU - Chen, Chia Hsien

AU - Huang, Yi You

AU - Tsuang, Yang Hwei

AU - Chiang, Chang Jung

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Background and Objectives This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to a control and to other nerve stimulation therapies (NSTs) for the treatment of chronic back pain. Methods Citations were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2014 using the following keywords: nerve stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, back pain, chronic pain. Control treatments included sham, placebo, or medication only. Other NSTs included electroacupuncture, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials including 700 patients were included in the analysis. The efficacy of TENS was similar to that of control treatment for providing pain relief (standardized difference in means [SDM] = -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.18; P = 0.293). Other types of NSTs were more effective than TENS in providing pain relief (SDM = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.15-1.57; P = 0.017). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was more effective than control treatment in improving functional disability only in patients with follow-up of less than 6 weeks (SDM = -1.24; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.65; P < 0.001). There was no difference in functional disability outcomes between TENS and other NSTs. Conclusions These results suggest that TENS does not improve symptoms of lower back pain, but may offer short-term improvement of functional disability.

AB - Background and Objectives This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to a control and to other nerve stimulation therapies (NSTs) for the treatment of chronic back pain. Methods Citations were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2014 using the following keywords: nerve stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, back pain, chronic pain. Control treatments included sham, placebo, or medication only. Other NSTs included electroacupuncture, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials including 700 patients were included in the analysis. The efficacy of TENS was similar to that of control treatment for providing pain relief (standardized difference in means [SDM] = -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.18; P = 0.293). Other types of NSTs were more effective than TENS in providing pain relief (SDM = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.15-1.57; P = 0.017). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was more effective than control treatment in improving functional disability only in patients with follow-up of less than 6 weeks (SDM = -1.24; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.65; P < 0.001). There was no difference in functional disability outcomes between TENS and other NSTs. Conclusions These results suggest that TENS does not improve symptoms of lower back pain, but may offer short-term improvement of functional disability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046361540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046361540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000740

DO - 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000740

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 425

EP - 433

JO - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

JF - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

SN - 1098-7339

IS - 4

ER -