Abstract
Background and Objective
To evaluate the effects of percutaneous electrical stimulation (PENS) alone or as an adjunct with other interventions on pain and related‐disability in musculoskeletal pain conditions.
Databases and Data Treatment
Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. Randomised controlled trials where at least one group received any form of PENS for musculoskeletal condition. Studies had to include humans and collect outcomes on pain and related‐disability in musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated.
Results
Sixteen studies were included and included heterogeneous musculoskeletal conditions with short or mid‐term follow‐ups. PENS alone had a large effect (SMD ‐1.22, 95%CI ‐1.66 to ‐0.79) on pain and a small effect (SMD ‐0.33, 95%CI ‐0.61 to ‐0.06) on related‐disability at short‐term as compared to sham. A moderate effect of PENS alone (SMD ‐0.71, 95%CI ‐1.23 to ‐0.19) on pain when compared to other interventions was observed. The inclusion of PENS with other interventions had a moderate effect for decreasing pain at short‐ (SMD ‐0.70, 95%CI ‐1.02 to ‐0.37) and mid‐term (SMD ‐0.68, 95%CI ‐1.10 to ‐0.27). No effect at mid‐term (SMD ‐0.21, 95%CI ‐0.52 to 0.10) on related‐disability was seen. The risk of bias was generally low; but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the level of evidence.
Conclusion
There is low level of evidence suggesting the effects of PENS alone or in combination for pain, but not related‐disability, in musculoskeletal pain.
from Wiley: European Journal of Pain: Table of Contents https://ift.tt/2xyssDw
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment