Transcutaneous electrical stimulation in neck pain: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
É. P. Rampazo ◽  
C.C. S. Martignago ◽  
M. de Noronha ◽  
R. E. Liebano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation

scholarly journals Percutaneous versus Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation of the Posterior Tibial Nerve in Idiopathic Overactive Bladder Syndrome with Urinary Incontinence in Adults: A Systematic Review

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 879
Author(s):  
Aida Agost-González ◽  
Isabel Escobio-Prieto ◽  
Azahara M. Pareja-Leal ◽  
María Jesús Casuso-Holgado ◽  
María Blanco-Diaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Overactive Bladder ◽  
Tibial Nerve ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Posterior Tibial Nerve ◽  
Posterior Tibial

Background: Percutaneous electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (PTNS and TTNS) of the posterior tibial nerve are internationally recognized treatment methods that offer advantages in terms of treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) who present with urinary incontinence (UI). This article aims to analyze the scientific evidence for the treatment of OAB with UI in adults using PTNS versus TTNS procedures in the posterior tibial nerve. Methods: A systematic review was conducted, between February and May 2021 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Results: The research identified 259 studies, 130 of which were selected and analyzed, with only 19 used according to the inclusion requirements established. The greatest effectiveness, in reducing UI and in other parameters of daily voiding and quality of life, was obtained by combining both techniques with other treatments, pharmacological treatments, or exercise. Conclusions: TTNS has advantages over PTNS as it is more comfortable for the patient even though there is equality of both therapies in the outcome variables. More research studies are necessary in order to obtain clear scientific evidence.

Exercise therapy for whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Chrcanovic ◽  
Johan Larsson ◽  
Eva-Maj Malmström ◽  
Hans Westergren ◽  
Birgitta Häggman-Henrikson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Whiplash Associated Disorders ◽  
Neck Disability

Abstract Objectives Acute as well as chronic pain syndromes are common after whiplash trauma and exercise therapy is proposed as one possible intervention strategy. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effect of exercise therapy in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders for the improvement of neck pain and neck disability, compared with other therapeutic interventions, placebo interventions, no treatment, or waiting list. Content The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42017060356) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane from inception until January 13, 2020 was combined with a hand search to identify eligible randomized controlled studies. Abstract screening, full text assessment and risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0) were conducted by two independent reviewers. Summary The search identified 4,103 articles. After removal of duplicates, screening of 2,921 abstracts and full text assessment of 100 articles, 27 articles that reported data for 2,127 patients were included. The included articles evaluated the effect of exercise therapy on neck pain, neck disability or other outcome measures and indicated some positive effects from exercise, but many studies lacked control groups not receiving active treatment. Studies on exercise that could be included in the random-effect meta-analysis showed significant short-term effects on neck pain and medium-term effects on neck disability. Outlook Despite a large number of articles published in the area of exercise therapy and Whiplash-Associated Disorders, the current evidence base is weak. The results from the present review with meta-analysis suggests that exercise therapy may provide additional effect for improvement of neck pain and disability in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders.

scholarly journals Electrical stimulation for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Zeng ◽  
H. li ◽  
T. Yang ◽  
Z.-h. Deng ◽  
Y. Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Meta Analysis

Sham transcranial electrical stimulation and its effects on corticospinal excitability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thusharika D. Dissanayaka ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Michael Farrell ◽  
Gary F. Egan ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Placebo Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

AbstractSham stimulation is used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of active stimulation and placebo effects. It should mimic the characteristics of active stimulation to achieve blinding integrity. The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to identify the effects of sham transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) – including anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS, c-tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) – on corticospinal excitability (CSE), compared to baseline in healthy individuals. Electronic databases – PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Science Direct and MEDLINE (Ovid) – were searched for RCTs of tES from 1990 to March 2017. Thirty RCTs were identified. Using a random-effects model, meta-analysis of a-tDCS, c-tDCS, tACS, tRNS and tPCS studies showed statistically non-significant pre-post effects of sham interventions on CSE. This review found evidence for statically non-significant effects of sham tES on CSE.

scholarly journals https://painphysicianjournal.com/current

2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. 335-348
Author(s):  
Nicholas Van Halm-Lutterodt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document