首页> 外文期刊>European journal of pain : >Meta‐analysis of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relief of spinal pain
【24h】

Meta‐analysis of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relief of spinal pain

机译:经皮神经刺激的荟萃分析,以缓解脊柱疼痛

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis analysing the existing data on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation ( TENS ) or interferential current ( IFC ) for chronic low back pain ( CLBP ) and/or neck pain ( CNP ) taking into account intensity and timing of stimulation, examining pain, function and disability. Seven electronic databases were searched for TENS or IFC treatment in non‐specific CLBP or CNP . Four reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TENS or IFC intervention in adult individuals with non‐specific CLBP or CNP . Primary outcomes were for self‐reported pain intensity and back‐specific disability. Two reviewers performed quality assessment, and two reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Nine RCTs were selected (eight CLBP ; one CNP ), and seven studies with complete data sets were included for meta‐analysis (655 participants). For CLBP , meta‐analysis shows TENS / IFC intervention, independent of time of assessment, was significantly different from placebo/control ( p ??0.02). TENS / IFC intervention was better than placebo/control, during therapy ( p ?=?0.02), but not immediately after therapy ( p ?=?0.08), or 1–3?months after therapy ( p ?=?0.99). Analysis for adequate stimulation parameters was not significantly different, and there was no effect on disability. This systematic review provides inconclusive evidence of TENS benefits in low back pain patients because the quality of the studies was low, and?adequate parameters and timing of assessment were not uniformly used or reported. Without additional high‐quality clinical trials using?sufficient sample sizes and adequate parameters and outcome assessments, the outcomes of this review are likely to remain unchanged. Significance These data highlight the need for additional high‐quality RCTs to examine the effects of TENS in CLBP. Trials should consider intensity of stimulation, timing of outcome assessment and assessment of pain, disability and function.
机译:摘要我们进行了系统审查和荟萃分析,分析了对经皮腰部疼痛(CLBP)和/或颈部疼痛(CNP)的经皮呼吸疼痛(CLBP)和/或颈部疼痛(CNP)的现有数据分析刺激,检查疼痛,功能和残疾。在非特定CLBP或CNP中搜索七种电子数据库的数十或IFC处理。四名评审员独立选择了数十或IFC干预的随机对照试验(RCT),在具有非特异性CLBP或CNP的成人个体中。主要结果用于自我报告的疼痛强度和背包残疾。两位审稿人进行了质量评估,两位审阅者使用标准形式提取数据。选择了九个RCT(八个CLBP;一个CNP),包括七项与完整数据集的研究进行Meta分析(655名参与者)。对于CLBP,Meta-Analysis显示,与评估时间无关,与安慰剂/对照有显着不同(p≤0.02)。 TENS / IFC干预比安慰剂/对照,治疗期间更好(p?= 0.02),但在治疗后立即(p?= 0.08),或治疗后1-3个月(p?= 0.99)。适当刺激参数的分析没有显着差异,对残疾没有影响。这种系统审查提供了在低腰疼痛患者中的不确定益处,因为研究的质量低,并且呢?不均匀使用或报告评估的足够参数和时间。没有额外的高质量临床试验使用?足够的样本尺寸和足够的参数和结果评估,这一综述结果可能保持不变。这些数据的意义突出了需要额外的高质量RCT来检查CLBP中数十的效果。试验应考虑刺激的强度,结果评估的时间和疼痛,残疾和功能的评估。

著录项

  • 来源
    《European journal of pain :》 |2018年第4期|共16页
  • 作者单位

    Physiological Science Graduate ProgramFederal University of SergipeAracaju SE Brazil;

    Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of IowaIA USA;

    Department of Physical TherapyFederal University of S?o CarlosSP Brazil;

    Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of IowaIA USA;

    Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of IowaIA USA;

    Hardin Library User ServicesIA USA;

    Department of Physical TherapyFederal University of S?o CarlosSP Brazil;

    Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of IowaIA USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 诊断学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号