Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Management of Cancer Pain: a Meta Analysis.

IF 3.2 2区医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Current Pain and Headache Reports Pub Date : 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1007/s11916-024-01337-0

Alan D Kaye, Kaitlyn E Allen, Shivam S Shah, Summer A Smith, Taylor R Plaisance, Amy E Brouillette, Dani'elle J Despanie, Tayler D Payton, Ross Rieger, Naina Singh, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sonja Gennuso, Sahar Shekoohi

{"title":"Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Management of Cancer Pain: a Meta Analysis.","authors":"Alan D Kaye, Kaitlyn E Allen, Shivam S Shah, Summer A Smith, Taylor R Plaisance, Amy E Brouillette, Dani'elle J Despanie, Tayler D Payton, Ross Rieger, Naina Singh, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sonja Gennuso, Sahar Shekoohi","doi":"10.1007/s11916-024-01337-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose of review: The present investigation assesses efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on relief of cancer or chemotherapy-related pain. Patients with cancer experience a relatively high prevalence of pain that is reportedly undertreated. Therefore, this analysis is pertinent to determine if TENS is a useful complementary therapy considering its increase in accessibility and minimal side effect profile.Recent findings: A systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase was performed. The present investigation elucidated any significant differences between change in numeric rating scale of average and maximum pain scores between a TENS and non-TENS group. A nonsignificant difference was reported between TENS and non-TENS, with a mean difference of - 0.393 (95% CI - 1.780, 0.993; P = 0.578). For change in maximum pain reported, a nonsignificant difference was also found, with a mean difference of 0.128 (95% CI - 1.158, 1.414; P = 0.845).Conclusion: Related to various limitations of this meta-analysis, no definitive conclusions could be concluded regarding efficacy of TENS in the treatment of cancer or chemotherapy-related pain. Additional randomized primary studies with standardized treatment protocols and pain measurements are needed for future meta-analysis and recommendations for clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":50602,"journal":{"name":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","volume":"29 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-024-01337-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: The present investigation assesses efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on relief of cancer or chemotherapy-related pain. Patients with cancer experience a relatively high prevalence of pain that is reportedly undertreated. Therefore, this analysis is pertinent to determine if TENS is a useful complementary therapy considering its increase in accessibility and minimal side effect profile.

Recent findings: A systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase was performed. The present investigation elucidated any significant differences between change in numeric rating scale of average and maximum pain scores between a TENS and non-TENS group. A nonsignificant difference was reported between TENS and non-TENS, with a mean difference of - 0.393 (95% CI - 1.780, 0.993; P = 0.578). For change in maximum pain reported, a nonsignificant difference was also found, with a mean difference of 0.128 (95% CI - 1.158, 1.414; P = 0.845).

Conclusion: Related to various limitations of this meta-analysis, no definitive conclusions could be concluded regarding efficacy of TENS in the treatment of cancer or chemotherapy-related pain. Additional randomized primary studies with standardized treatment protocols and pain measurements are needed for future meta-analysis and recommendations for clinical practice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

经皮神经电刺激治疗癌性疼痛的疗效：Meta分析。

回顾目的：本研究评估经皮神经电刺激（TENS）对缓解癌症或化疗相关疼痛的疗效。癌症患者经历了相对较高的疼痛患病率，据报道治疗不足。因此，考虑到TENS增加了可及性和最小的副作用，该分析有助于确定TENS是否是一种有用的补充疗法。最近的发现：对PubMed、谷歌Scholar、Cochrane和Embase中符合条件的研究进行了系统搜索。本研究阐明了TENS组和非TENS组在平均和最大疼痛评分的数值评定量表变化之间的显著差异。TENS与非TENS之间无显著差异，平均差异为- 0.393 (95% CI - 1.780, 0.993；p = 0.578)。对于报告的最大疼痛变化，也发现无显著差异，平均差异为0.128 (95% CI - 1.158, 1.414；p = 0.845)。结论：由于本荟萃分析的各种局限性，对于TENS治疗癌症或化疗相关疼痛的疗效，尚不能得出明确的结论。未来的荟萃分析和临床实践建议需要额外的具有标准化治疗方案和疼痛测量的随机初级研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Current Pain and Headache Reports CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

2.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and management of pain and headache. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care and prevention of pain and headache. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anesthetic techniques in pain management, cluster headache, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.