Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the relief of primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Pain management Pub Date : 2026-08-07 DOI:10.1080/17581869.2026.2714978

Evelin de Oliveira Wulf, Maria Rita Brandão, Mariana Olher Goveia, Juliana Cristina Frare, Humberto de Sousa Fontoura, Márcia Rosângela Buzanello, Gladson Ricardo Flor Bertolini

{"title":"Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the relief of primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Evelin de Oliveira Wulf, Maria Rita Brandão, Mariana Olher Goveia, Juliana Cristina Frare, Humberto de Sousa Fontoura, Márcia Rosângela Buzanello, Gladson Ricardo Flor Bertolini","doi":"10.1080/17581869.2026.2714978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To synthesize evidence on TENS efficacy for primary dysmenorrhea, providing quantitative meta-analysis of pain intensity, exploratory subgroup analyses on electrode placement, and systematic RoB 2 assessment, addressing gaps from previous qualitative reviews.Method: Systematic search across PubMed, VHL, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, PEDro, and gray literature, without restrictions. RoB 2 was applied independently by two reviewers. Primary outcome: pain intensity. Meta-analysis used RevMan 5.4.1.Results: Eight studies included from 1,018 records. TENS significantly reduced pain (SMD = -1.85; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.79; p < 0.001), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). Subgroup analyses showed significant effects regardless of application site. .Conclusion: This meta-analysis quantifies TENS analgesic effect for primary dysmenorrhea, suggesting pain reduction irrespective of electrode placement. However, very high heterogeneity, moderate-to-high risk of bias, wide parameter variability, small samples, and imprecise subgroup estimates limit certainty. TENS appears safe (no serious adverse events), but underreporting prevents firm conclusions. Standardized protocols and high-quality, low-bias trials are needed. Certainty is likely low per GRADE considerations.Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024540314.","PeriodicalId":20000,"journal":{"name":"Pain management","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17581869.2026.2714978","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To synthesize evidence on TENS efficacy for primary dysmenorrhea, providing quantitative meta-analysis of pain intensity, exploratory subgroup analyses on electrode placement, and systematic RoB 2 assessment, addressing gaps from previous qualitative reviews.

Method: Systematic search across PubMed, VHL, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, PEDro, and gray literature, without restrictions. RoB 2 was applied independently by two reviewers. Primary outcome: pain intensity. Meta-analysis used RevMan 5.4.1.

Results: Eight studies included from 1,018 records. TENS significantly reduced pain (SMD = -1.85; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.79; p < 0.001), with high heterogeneity (I² = 94%). Subgroup analyses showed significant effects regardless of application site. .

Conclusion: This meta-analysis quantifies TENS analgesic effect for primary dysmenorrhea, suggesting pain reduction irrespective of electrode placement. However, very high heterogeneity, moderate-to-high risk of bias, wide parameter variability, small samples, and imprecise subgroup estimates limit certainty. TENS appears safe (no serious adverse events), but underreporting prevents firm conclusions. Standardized protocols and high-quality, low-bias trials are needed. Certainty is likely low per GRADE considerations.

Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024540314.

查看原文本刊更多论文

经皮神经电刺激缓解原发性痛经：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的：综合TENS治疗原发性痛经疗效的证据，对疼痛强度进行定量荟萃分析，对电极放置进行探索性亚组分析，并对RoB 2进行系统评估，弥补以往定性评价的不足。方法：系统检索PubMed、VHL、Web of Science、Embase、LILACS、PEDro和灰色文献，不加限制。RoB 2由两位审稿人独立应用。主要结局：疼痛强度。meta分析采用RevMan 5.4.1。结果：从1018份记录中纳入了8项研究。TENS显著减轻疼痛（SMD = -1.85; 95% CI -2.90 ~ -0.79; p < 0.001），异质性高（I2 = 94%）。亚组分析显示，与应用部位无关，效果显著。结论：该荟萃分析量化了TENS对原发性痛经的镇痛效果，提示与电极放置无关的疼痛减轻。然而，非常高的异质性、中高偏倚风险、宽参数变异性、小样本和不精确的亚组估计限制了确定性。TENS似乎是安全的（没有严重的不良事件），但报告不足阻碍了确切的结论。需要标准化的方案和高质量、低偏倚的试验。根据GRADE考虑，确定性可能较低。协议注册：www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero标识为CRD42024540314。

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

Pain management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

5.90%

发文量