INTRODUCTION: People with ulnar, radial or median nerve injuries can present significant impairment of their sensory and motor functions. The prescribed treatment for these conditions often includes electrophysical therapies, whose effectiveness in improving symptoms and function is a source of debate. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an integrative overview of the efficacy of these modalities in sensorimotor rehabilitation compared to placebo, manual therapy, or between them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We perform a literature review in the following databases: Biomed Central, Ebscohost, Lilacs, Ovid, PEDro, Sage, Scopus, Science Direct, Semantic Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Web of Science, for the period 1980-2020. We include studies that discussed the sensorimotor rehabilitation of people with non-degenerative ulnar, radial, or median nerve injury. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Risk of Bias Tool described in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the risk of bias across studies with the GRADE approach described in the GRADE Handbook. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included in the systematic review and 34 in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low according to GRADE criteria. Low-level laser therapy and ultrasound showed favourable results in improving symptom severity and functional status compared to manual therapy. In addition, the low level laser showed improvements in pinch strength compared to placebo and pain (VAS) compared to manual therapy. Splints showed superior results to electrophysical modalities. The clinical significance of the results was assessed by effect size estimation and comparison with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). CONCLUSIONS: We found favourable results in pain relief, improvement of symptoms, functional status, and neurophysiological parameters for some electrophysical modalities, mainly when applied with a splint. Our results coincide with those obtained in some meta-analyses. However, none of these can be considered clinically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168792; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168792.