PainSci summary of Hurlow 2012?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆?4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
A review of just three experiments, and (unsurprisingly) inconclusive!
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain is complex and multi-dimensional but the mainstay of cancer pain management has predominantly used a biomedical approach. There is a need for non-pharmacological and innovative approaches. Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have a role in pain management but the effectiveness of TENS is currently unknown. This is an update of the original review published in Issue 3, 2008.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS for cancer-related pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: The initial review searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AMED and PEDRO databases in April 2008. We performed an updated search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDRO databases in November 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTS) investigating the use of TENS for the management of cancer-related pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The search strategy identified a further two studies for possible inclusion. One of the review authors screened each abstract using a study eligibility tool. Where eligibility could not be determined, a second author assessed the full paper. One author used a standardised data extraction sheet to collect information on the studies and independently assess the quality of the studies using the validated five-point Oxford Quality Scale. The small sample sizes and differences in patient study populations of the three included studies (two from the original review and a third included in this update) prevented meta-analysis. For the original review the search strategy identified 37 possible published studies; we divided these between two pairs of review authors who decided on study selection; all four review authors discussed and agreed final scores.
MAIN RESULTS: Only one additional RCT met the eligibility criteria (24 participants) for this updated review. Although this was a feasibility study, not designed to investigate intervention effect, it suggested that TENS may improve bone pain on movement in a cancer population. The initial review identified two RCTs (64 participants) therefore this review now includes a total of three RCTs (88 participants). These studies were heterogenous with respect to study population, sample size, study design, methodological quality, mode of TENS, treatment duration, method of administration and outcome measures used. In one RCT, there were no significant differences between TENS and placebo in women with chronic pain secondary to breast cancer treatment. In the other RCT, there were no significant differences between acupuncture-type TENS and sham in palliative care patients; this study was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the one additional RCT, the results of this updated systematic review remain inconclusive due to a lack of suitable RCTs. Large multi-centre RCTs are required to assess the value of TENS in the management of cancer-related pain in adults.
One article on PainScience.com cites Hurlow 2012 as a source:
- PS Zapped! Does TENS work for pain? — The peculiar popularity of being gently zapped with electrical stimulation therapy
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.