Suppr超能文献

经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)治疗慢性下腰痛。

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain.

作者信息

Khadilkar A, Milne S, Brosseau L, Robinson V, Saginur M, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells G

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20(3):CD003008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003008.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chronic low-back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS in the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PEDro up to April 1, 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on 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 Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating 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

The only two RCTs (175 patients) meeting eligibility criteria differed in study design, methodological quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type and method of TENS application, treatment schedule, co-interventions and final outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Pre-planned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations and baseline patient characteristics were not possible due to the small number of included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistent evidence to support the use of TENS as a single treatment in the management of chronic LBP. Larger, multi-center, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the true effectiveness of TENS. Special attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low-back pain.

摘要

背景

慢性下腰痛(LBP)影响着相当一部分人群。经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)在30多年前被引入,作为疼痛药物治疗的辅助手段。然而,尽管其广泛应用,但TENS在慢性LBP治疗中的有效性仍存在争议。

目的

本系统评价的目的是确定TENS在慢性LBP治疗中的有效性。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(2005年第2期)、MEDLINE、EMBASE以及截至2005年4月1日的PEDro数据库。

入选标准

仅纳入评估TENS对慢性LBP疗效的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。除非能从作者处获得更多数据,否则排除摘要。

数据收集与分析

两名评价者独立选择试验,并使用预先确定的表格提取数据。采用Cochrane的Q检验检测异质性。除存在异质性的情况外,全程使用固定效应模型计算连续变量,此时使用随机效应模型。结果以加权均数差(WMD)及其95%置信区间(95%CI)表示,治疗组与对照组之间的差异通过方差倒数加权。标准化均数差(SMD)通过将治疗组与对照组之间的差异除以基线方差来计算。当使用不同量表测量同一概念时使用SMD。二分结局采用比值比进行分析。

主要结果

符合纳入标准的仅两项RCT(175例患者)在研究设计、方法学质量、纳入和排除标准、TENS应用类型和方法、治疗方案、联合干预措施及最终结局方面存在差异。在一项RCT中,TENS产生的疼痛缓解明显优于安慰剂对照。然而,在另一项RCT中,治疗组与对照组在多项结局指标上未显示出统计学显著差异。由于纳入试验数量较少,无法进行预先计划的亚组分析,以探讨不同刺激参数、TENS应用部位、治疗持续时间及基线患者特征的影响。

作者结论

尚无一致证据支持将TENS作为慢性LBP治疗的单一疗法。需要开展更大规模、多中心的随机对照试验,以更好地评估TENS的真正有效性。应特别关注长期使用的风险和益处,这能更恰当地应对慢性下腰痛管理的实际情况。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验