Summary of findings 1. TENS versus sham TENS.
TENS versus sham TENS for neuropathic pain in adults | ||||
Patient or population: adults with neuropathic pain Settings: secondary care Intervention/comparison: TENS vs sham TENS Outcome: Pain intensity (VAS) | ||||
Outcomes |
Effect estimate (95% CI) |
No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
Post‐intervention pain intensity (VAS 0‐10) |
Favoured TENS. Mean difference ‐1.58 (95% CI ‐2.08 to ‐1.09) |
207 (5) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa | Downgraded 3 levels due to multiple sources of potential bias, small number and size of studies. |
Health related quality of life | No data | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
Participant global impression of change | No data | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
Analgesic medication use | Not estimable | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
Incidence/nature of adverse events | Not estimable | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
CI: confidence interval; TENS: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; VAS: visual analogue scale. | ||||
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. |
aDowngraded twice for limitations of studies and once for imprecision.