Suppr超能文献

经皮电神经刺激和干扰电流在缓解急性和慢性疼痛方面具有相似的效果:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current demonstrate similar effects in relieving acute and chronic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

机构信息

Physical Therapy Division, Brasília, DF, Brazil.

Physical Therapy Division, Instituto Hospital de Base do Distrito federal e Escola Superior de Ciências da Saúde (ESCS), Brasilia, DF, Brazil.

出版信息

Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 Sep-Oct;22(5):347-354. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.12.005. Epub 2018 Feb 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have been widely used in clinical practice. However, a systematic review comparing their effects on pain relief has not yet been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current on acute and chronic pain.

METHODS

We use Pubmed, Embase, LILACS, PEDro and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as data sources. Two independent reviewers that selected studies according to inclusion criteria, extracted information of interest and verified the methodological quality of the studies made study selection. The studies were selected if transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current were used as treatment and they had pain as the main outcome, as evaluated by a visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were the Western Ontario Macmaster and Rolland Morris Disability questionnaires, which were added after data extraction.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a pooled sample of 825 patients were included. The methodological quality of the selected studies was moderate, with an average of six on a 0-10 scale (PEDro). In general, both transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current improved pain and functional outcomes without a statistical difference between them.

CONCLUSION

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have similar effects on pain outcome The low number of studies included in this meta-analysis indicates that new clinical trials are needed.

摘要

背景

经皮神经电刺激和干扰电刺激已广泛应用于临床实践。然而,尚未进行系统评价比较它们在缓解疼痛方面的效果。

目的

探讨经皮神经电刺激和干扰电刺激对急性和慢性疼痛的影响。

方法

我们使用 Pubmed、Embase、LILACS、PEDro 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库作为数据来源。两名独立的审查员根据纳入标准选择研究,提取感兴趣的信息,并验证研究的方法学质量。如果经皮神经电刺激和干扰电刺激作为治疗手段,且疼痛是主要结局(用视觉模拟评分法评估),则选择这些研究。次要结局是 Western Ontario Macmaster 和 Rolland Morris 残疾问卷,这些问卷是在数据提取后添加的。

结果

共纳入 8 项研究,样本量为 825 例。入选研究的方法学质量为中等,PEDro 评分为 0-10 分的平均得分为 6 分。总体而言,经皮神经电刺激和干扰电刺激均能改善疼痛和功能结局,且两者之间无统计学差异。

结论

经皮神经电刺激和干扰电刺激在疼痛结局方面的效果相似。本荟萃分析纳入的研究数量较少,表明需要开展新的临床试验。

相似文献

5
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain.经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)治疗慢性颈部疼痛。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 12;12(12):CD011927. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011927.pub2.
7
Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee.经皮电刺激治疗膝骨关节炎
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;2009(4):CD002823. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002823.pub2.
9
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain.经皮电刺激神经疗法治疗急性疼痛。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 15;2015(6):CD006142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006142.pub3.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice.核心结局集用于研究和临床实践。
Braz J Phys Ther. 2017 Mar-Apr;21(2):77-84. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 18.
7
Knee Osteoarthritis: Does Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Work?膝骨关节炎:经皮电刺激神经疗法有效吗?
Orthopedics. 2016 Jan-Feb;39(1):e180-6. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20151222-02. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
10
Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain.非特异性下腰痛临床试验的核心结局领域
Eur Spine J. 2015 Jun;24(6):1127-42. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3892-3. Epub 2015 Apr 5.

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