Table 3.
Mean differences reported in reviews and calculated from pooled data for pain intensity for continuous data.
| Reference | Title | Condition | Comparison | No. Pooled Studies | Number of Participants Pooled TENS | Number of Participants Pooled Comparison | Measure | MD | Lower CI | Upper CI | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Difference during or post TENS relative to baseline | |||||||||||
| Salazar et al., 2017 [81] | Electric Stimulation for Pain Relief in Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials | Fibromyalgia | Non-TENS | 5 | TENS = 63 | Non-TENS = 57 | Difference during/post TENS relative to baseline | −1.34 | −3.27 | 0.59 | Appears to be inconsistency in reporting of whether this is a mean difference or a standardised mean difference |
| Bjordal et al., 2007 [82] | Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. | Osteoarthritis—knee pain | Placebo | 7 | TENS (IFT) = 163 | Placebo = 114 | Difference during/post TENS relative to baseline | −22.1 | −26.3 | −18.12 | |
| Mean Difference during or post TENS (absolute difference) | |||||||||||
| Johnson et al., 2015 [83] | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain | Acute pain—various | Placebo | 6 | TENS = 218 | Placebo 218 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −24.6 | −31.79 | −17.4 | |
| Simpson et al., 2014 [84] | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relieving acute pain in the prehospital setting | Acute pain—various in prehospital setting | Sham | 4 | TENS = 128 | Sham TENS = 133 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −32.7 | −44.41 | −20.97 | |
| Binny et al., 2019 [85] | Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute low back pain: systematic review | Acute low back pain | Control | 2 | TENS = 64 | Control = 65 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −2.75 | −11.63 | 6.13 | |
| Resende et al., 2018 [51] | Meta-analysis of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relief of spinal pain | Chronic back and/or neck pain | Control | 6 | TENS/IFT 148 | Control = 142 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −9.2 | −17.3 | −1.2 | |
| Machado et al., 2009 [86] | Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials | Chronic low back pain | Placebo | 4 | Not reported Total sample 178 |
Not reported Total sample 178 |
Absolute Difference during/post TENS | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | NOTE: Data was pooled and forest plot presented without numbers. Effect size not reported |
| Poitras and Brosseau 2008 [87] | Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential current, electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, and thermotherapy | Chronic low back pain | Control | 2 | Not reported | Not reported | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | NOTE: There is a forest plot but MD data not reported—Figure 1 from the report—we used HF TENS (n = 2 studies) rather than LF TENSA (n = 3 studies) MD for High frequency = 2 studies but MD data not given on figure |
| van Middelkoop et al., 2011 [53] | A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain | Chronic low back pain | Control | 4 | Not reported | Not reported | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | Not possible to isolate TENS effects | Not possible to isolate TENS effects | Not possible to isolate TENS effects | NOTE: Not possible to isolate effects due to TENS alone as TENS as part of a combination therapy of therapeutic ultrasound, low level laser and massage. |
| Gibson et al., 2017 [13] | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults (Review) | Neuropathic pain—various | Sham | 5 | TENS = 111 | Sham TENS = 96 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −15.8 | −20.8 | −10.9 | |
| Zhou et al., 2020 [88] | Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electronic Nerve Stimulation in Postoperative Analgesia After Pulmonary Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Postoperative pain—pulmonary surgery | Control | 7 | TENS = 193 | Control = 190 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −10 | −16.4 | −3.5 | |
| Sbruzzi et al., 2012 [89]—Analysis 1 surgery with posterolateral thoracotomy approach | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation after thoracic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials | Postoperative pain—thoracic surgery | Sham | 4 | TENS = 117 | Sham TENS = 113 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −12.9 | −19.4 | −6.5 | |
| Sbruzzi et al., 2012 [89]—Analysis 2 surgery with posterolateral thoracotomy approach | Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation after thoracic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials | Postoperative pain—thoracic surgery | Control | 6 | TENS = 108 | Control = 107 | Absolute Difference during/post TENS | −13.3 | −18.9 | −7.7 | |
| Mean Difference—unclear whether absolute difference or difference relative to baseline | |||||||||||
| Abou-Setta et al., 2011 [90] | Comparative Effectiveness of Pain Management Interventions for Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review | Bone fracture—hip | Standard of care | 2 | Not reported | Not reported | Unclear | −2.79 | −4.95 | −0.64 | |
| Malone and Strube 1988 [91] | Meta-analysis of non-medical treatments for chronic pain | Chronic pain—various | No treatment | 2 | Not reported | Not reported | Unclear | 0.46 | Not reported | Not reported | MD TENS vs. no treatment control = 0.46 (SD = 0.07) |
Key: IFT = interferential therapy; CI = 95% Confidence Interval.