PainSci summary of Nnoaham 2008?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 inconclusive review of 25 little studies of TENS for chronic pain. Methods and results were “inconsistent across studies and generally poor.” Of the nine studies that compared high and low frequency TENS, seven found no difference.
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: 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 Abstracts, letters, or unpublished studies, and studies of TENS in angina, headache, migraine, dysmenorrhoea and cancer-related pain were excluded.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.
One article on PainScience.com cites Nnoaham 2008 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.
- 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.