PainSci summary of Milne 2001?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.
An aging but resoundingly negative review of five tests of TENS for chronic low back pain, finding “no statistically significant differences between the active TENS group when compared to the placebo TENS group for any outcome measures.” The authors concluded there was “no evidence to support the use of TENS in the treatment of chronic low back pain.” See Khadilkar 2008 for a more recent review on exactly the same topic — but still negative.
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: Low back pain (LBP) affects a large proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an alternative therapy to pharmacological treatments for chronic pain. However, despite its widespread use, the effectiveness of TENS is still controversial.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment of chronic LBP.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to June 1, 2000.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled clinical trials of TENS for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic LBP were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.
MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 170 subjects randomized to the placebo group receiving sham-TENS and 251 subjects receiving active TENS (153 for conventional mode, 98 for acupuncture-like TENS). The schedule of treatments varied greatly between studies ranging from one treatment/day for two consecutive days, to three treatments/day for four weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the active TENS group when compared to the placebo TENS group for any outcome measures. Subgroup analysis performed on TENS application and methodological quality did not demonstrate a significant statistical difference. Remaining pre-planned subgroup analysis was not conducted due to the small number of included trials and the variety of outcome measures reported.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis present no evidence to support the use of TENS in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the TENS device and the application techniques used. New trials on TENS should make use of standardized outcome measures. This meta-analysis lacked data on how TENS effectiveness is affected by four important factors: type of applications, site of application, treatment duration of TENS, optimal frequencies and intensities.
- “Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain,” Amole Khadilkar, Daniel Oluwafemi Odebiyi, Lucie Brosseau, and George A Wells, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008.
These three articles on PainScience.com cite Milne 2001 as a source:
- PS Trigger Points & Myofascial Pain Syndrome — A guide to the unfinished science of muscle pain, with reviews of every theory and self-treatment and therapy option
- PS Save Yourself from Low Back Pain! — Low back pain myths debunked and all your treatment options reviewed
- 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.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- 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.