Table 17.

Summary of reviews that include evaluation of TENS for procedural pain. The column ‘Authors’ Conclusion’ contains statements taken from reports.

Ref.	Title	Condition	Acute/Chronic Pain	Review Type	Number of TENS Studies	Meta-Analysis	Authors’ Conclusion	Authors’ Judgement	Our Judgement	Comment
Kwan et al. [189]	Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction.	Procedural pain	Acute	CR	0	N	No statement of conclusion for TENS	?	?	Update of Kwan et al. [196]
Fleming et al. [197]	Non-pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment	Orthodontic treatment—pain	Both	CR	0	N	No statement of conclusion for TENS	?	?
Ngee-Ming et al. [191]	Complementary approaches to decreasing discomfort during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)	Procedural pain	Acute	SR	1	N	…methods such as acupuncture, TENS and music offer an avenue to these benefits	+	?
Mujezinovic et al. [190]	Analgesia for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling	Procedural pain	Acute	CR	0	N	No statement of conclusion for TENS	?	?

Key: OSR = overview of systematic reviews; SR = systematic review; CR = Cochrane review; MR = mixed review; Y = yes; n = no; The column ‘Authors’ judgement’: + = evidence tending to favour TENS, − = evidence tending not to favour TENS, ? = evidence tending to be conflicting, inconclusive or insufficient to make a judgement; The column ‘Our Judgement’: + = Sufficient evidence to judge—TENS beneficial; − = Sufficient evidence to judge—TENS not beneficial; +/− = Sufficient evidence to judge—inconclusive; ? = Insufficient evidence to judge.