Objective: To determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has an analgesic effect greater than placebo or other treatments in patients with fibromyalgia. Furthermore, it was intended to analyze the optimal application parameters to achieve a greater reduction of pain. Design: A systematic review. Data source: Randomized clinical trials on the effect of TENS on fibromyalgia in the databases Pubmed, Cochrane and PEDro until November 2016. Selection of studies: 8 studies out of a total of 62 were selected. Controlled clinical trials in which TENS was applied in patients with fibromyalgia were included. Data extraction: Pain was analyzed as the main variable, although other variables such as fatigue, quality of life and impact, range of motion and depression were also included. Results: 6 out of 8 studies obtained a significant decrease of pain. In 2 studies, TENS was applied as complementary treatment to therapeutic exercise with results evidencing a decrease in pain. The rest of the variables studied presented a great variability and conclusive results could not be established. Conclusions: Treatment with TENS is effective for reducing pain in people with fibromyalgia. In addition, the inclusion of TENS in therapeutic exercise programs seems to have a greater effect than practicing therapeutic exercise in isolation. However, no efficacy has been demonstrated in other variables different to pain. Further studies are needed to investigate the optimization of the parameters of the TENS and a greater consensus among the variables used
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.
OBJECTIVES: Many interventions are available to manage chronic pain; understanding the durability of treatment effects may assist with treatment selection. We sought to assess which noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for selected chronic pain conditions are associated with persistent improvement in function and pain outcomes at least 1 month after the completion of treatment.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017, reference lists, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
REVIEW METHODS: Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that addressed efficacy or harms compared with usual care, no treatment, waitlist, placebo, or sham intervention; compared with pharmacological therapy; or compared with exercise. Study quality was assessed, data extracted, and results summarized for function and pain. Only trials reporting results for at least 1 month post-intervention were included. We focused on the persistence of effects at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).
RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen publications (202 trials) were included. Many included trials were small. Evidence on outcomes beyond 1 year after treatment completion was sparse. Most trials enrolled patients with moderate baseline pain intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0 to 10 point numeric rating scale) and duration of symptoms ranging from 3 months to >15 years. The most common comparison was against usual care. Chronic low back pain: At short term, massage, yoga, and psychological therapies (primarily CBT) (strength of evidence [SOE]: moderate) and exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with usual care or inactive controls. Except for spinal manipulation, these interventions also improved pain. Effects on intermediate-term function were sustained for yoga, spinal manipulation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low), and psychological therapies (SOE: moderate). Improvements in pain continued into intermediate term for exercise, massage, and yoga (moderate effect, SOE: low); mindfulness-based stress reduction (small effect, SOE: low); spinal manipulation, psychological therapies, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (small effects, SOE: moderate). For acupuncture, there was no difference in pain at intermediate term, but a slight improvement at long term (SOE: low). Psychological therapies were associated with slightly greater improvement than usual care or an attention control on both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (SOE: moderate). At short and intermediate term, multidisciplinary rehabilitation slightly improved pain compared with exercise (SOE: moderate). High-intensity multidisciplinary rehabilitation (≥20 hours/week or >80 hours total) was not clearly better than non–high-intensity programs. Chronic neck pain: At short and intermediate terms, acupuncture and Alexander Technique were associated with slightly improved function compared with usual care (both interventions), sham acupuncture, or sham laser (SOE: low), but no improvement in pain was seen at any time (SOE: llow). Short-term low-level laser therapy was associated with moderate improvement in function and pain (SOE: moderate). Combination exercise (any 3 of the following: muscle performance, mobility, muscle re-education, aerobic) demonstrated a slight improvement in pain and function short and long term (SOE: low). Osteoarthritis: For knee osteoarthritis, exercise and ultrasound demonstrated small short-term improvements in function compared with usual care, an attention control, or sham procedure (SOE: moderate for exercise, low for ultrasound), which persisted into the intermediate term only for exercise (SOE: low). Exercise was also associated with moderate improvement in pain (SOE: low). Long term, the small improvement in function seen with exercise persisted, but there was no clear effect on pain (SOE: low). Evidence was sparse on interventions for hip and hand osteoarthritis . Exercise for hip osteoarthritis was associated with slightly greater function and pain improvement than usual care short term (SOE: low). The effect on function was sustained intermediate term (SOE: low). Fibromyalgia: In the short term, acupuncture (SOE: moderate), CBT, tai chi, qigong, and exercise (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with an attention control, sham, no treatment, or usual care. Exercise (SOE: moderate) and CBT improved pain slightly, and tai chi and qigong (SOE: low) improved pain moderately in the short term. At intermediate term for exercise (SOE: moderate), acupuncture, and CBT (SOE: low), slight functional improvements persisted; they were also seen for myofascial release massage and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low); pain was improved slightly with multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the intermediate term (SOE: low). In the long term, small improvements in function continued for multidisciplinary rehabilitation but not for exercise or massage (SOE: low for all); massage (SOE: low) improved long-term pain slightly, but no clear impact on pain for exercise (SOE: moderate) or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) was seen. Short-term CBT was associated with a slight improvement in function but not pain compared with pregabalin. Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation slightly improved function and moderately improved pain short term versus usual care, and laser acupuncture was associated with slight pain improvement short term compared with sham (SOE: low). There was no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any of the interventions, although data on harms were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, and mind-body practices were most consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain for specific chronic pain conditions. Our findings provided some support for clinical strategies that focused on use of nonpharmacological therapies for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional comparative research on sustainability of effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.
Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is a non-invasive method of applying low-intensity electrical current to the head. It is related to but distinct from other forms of transcranial electrical stimulation including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. The different versions of transcranial electrical stimulation vary in the placement of electrodes, the intensity of the current, and the waveform of the current. According to Guleyupoglu and colleagues, CES evolved from the concept of “electrosleep,” first investigated at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of the early research and applications occurred in Russia. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of electrosleep became more popular in the USA. Because of the belief that the treatment did not actually induce sleep, but rather the sleep was a side effect of the relaxing effect of the current stimulation, the name was changed from “electrosleep” to “cranial electrical stimulation.” Other proposed names, which have not persisted, included “transcerebral electrotherapy” and “NeuroElectric Therapy.” The latter is noteworthy because it gave its name to an early CES device, the Neurotone 101, which was the first device approved by the FDA. All subsequent CES devices have been cleared for marketing by FDA based on the concept of claiming equivalency to the Neurotone 101. The status of cranial electrical stimulation devices and FDA regulation remains a matter of some controversy.
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a syndrome whose primary symptoms include chronic widespread muscle pain and fatigue. The treatment of patients with FM aims to provide symptomatic relief and improvement in physical capacities to perform daily tasks and quality of life. Invasive or non-invasive electric stimulation (ES) is used for pain relief in patients with FM.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of treatment with ES, combined or not combined with other types of therapy, for pain relief in patients with FM.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING: Electronic search was conducted on databases (from the inception to April 2016): MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane CENTRAL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
METHODS: Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies based on the inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of ES combined or not with other types of treatment for pain relief in patients with FM (according to the American College of Rheumatology), regardless of the ES dosages. The primary outcome was pain, assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes extracted were quality of life, assessed by short form-36 health survey (SF- 36), and fatigue, assessed by VAS.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included, with 301 patients. The meta-analysis for pain showed positive effect of ES treatment versus control [-1.24 (95% CI: -2.39 to -0.08; I²: 87%, P = 0.04) n = 8 RCTs]. The sensitivity analysis for pain showed significant results for invasive ES, combined or not with other types of therapy [-0.94 (95% CI, -1.50 to -0.38; I² 0%, P = 0.001) n = 3 RCTs]. No significant improvement was found regarding quality of life [-3.48 (95% CI: -12.58 to 5.62; I²: 0%, P = 0.45), n = 2 RCTs] or fatigue [-0.57 (95% CI, -1.25 to 0.11; I² 34%, P = 0.100; n = 4 RCTs].
LIMITATIONS: This systematic review included a small number of studies and reduced number of participants in each study. Furthermore, most of the studies showed some biases and lack of methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that there is low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of ES for pain relief in patients with FM. However, moderate-quality evidence for the effectiveness of electroacupuncture (EA), combined or not combined with other types of treatment, was found for pain relief.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: PROSPERO under the identification CRD42015025323Key words: Electric stimulation, electroacupuncture, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation, pain, fibromyalgia, review, physical therapy, rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES: Patients with long-lasting pain problems often complain of lack of confidence and trust in their body. Through physical experiences and reflections they can develop a more positive body- and self-experience. Body awareness has been suggested as an approach for treating patients with chronic pain and other psychosomatic conditions. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of body awareness interventions (BAI) in fibromyalgia (FM) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
METHODS: Two independent readers conducted a search on Medline, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of knowledge, PEDro and Cinahl for randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: We identified and screened 7.107 records of which 29 articles met the inclusion criteria. Overall, there is evidence that BAI has positive effects on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) (MD -5.55; CI -8.71 to -2.40), pain (SMD -0.39, CI -0.75 to -0.02), depression (SMD -0.23, CI -0.39 to -0.06), anxiety (SMD -0.23, CI -0.44 to -0.02) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (SMD 0.62, CI 0.35-0.90) when compared with control conditions. The overall heterogeneity is very strong for FIQ (I(2) 92%) and pain (I(2) 97%), which cannot be explained by differences in control condition or type of BAI (hands-on/hands-off). The overall heterogeneity for anxiety, depression and HRQoL ranges from low to moderate (I(2) 0%-37%).
CONCLUSIONS: Body awareness seems to play an important role in anxiety, depression and HRQoL. Still, interpretations have to be done carefully since the lack of high quality studies.
Introduction: In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the effectiveness of different forms of balneotherapy (BT) and hydrotherapy (HT) in the management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted through April 2013 (Medline via Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and CAMBASE). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: Meta-analysis showed moderate-to-strong evidence for a small reduction in pain (SMD -0.42; 95% CI [-0.61, -0.24]; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) with regard to HT (8 studies, 462 participants; 3 low-risk studies, 223 participants), and moderate-to-strong evidence for a small improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL; 7 studies, 398 participants; 3 low-risk studies, 223 participants) at the end of treatment (SMD -0.40; 95% CI [-0.62, -0.18]; P = 0.0004; I2 = 15%). No effect was seen at the end of treatment for depressive symptoms and tender point count (TPC).BT in mineral/thermal water (5 studies, 177 participants; 3 high-risk and 2 unclear risk studies) showed moderate evidence for a medium-to-large size reduction in pain and TPC at the end of treatment: SMD -0.84; 95% CI [-1.36, -0.31]; P = 0.002; I2 = 63% and SMD -0.83; 95% CI [-1.42, -0.24]; P = 0.006; I2 = 71%. After sensitivity analysis, and excluding one study, the effect size for pain decreased: SMD -0.58; 95% CI [-0.91, -0.26], P = 0.0004; I2 = 0. Moderate evidence is given for a medium improvement of HRQOL (SMD -0.78; 95% CI [-1.13, -0.43]; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). A significant effect on depressive symptoms was not found. The improvements for pain could be maintained at follow-up with smaller effects.Conclusions: High-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the therapeutic benefit of BT and HT, with focus on long-term results and maintenance of the beneficial effects.
The aim of this review was to determine what type of physical activity programmes have been developed in patients with fibromyalgia and what are its effects and benefits on the degree of pain and quality of life. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases. The word "fibromyalgia" was always used as a criterion for combined search (using "AND" connector) with physical activity, exercise, physical therapy and training (MeSH terms). Of the 2,531 initial results, 33 papers were selected for review. The studies reviewed focus primarily on dance activities, water activities, multidisciplinary, mind-body work, fitness and stretching. After applying the intervention program, the pain level was reduced between 10 and 44.2%, and the impact of the disease between 5.3 and 17.9%, improving the symptoms of these patients. In conclusion, a multidisciplinary programme (in which physical activity is included) may have positive effects on the quality of life of people with fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions recommended for fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).
METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing any therapeutic approach as recommended in FMS guidelines (except complementary and alternative medicine) with control interventions in patients with FMS. Primary outcomes were pain and quality of life. Data extraction was done using standardised forms.
RESULTS: 102 trials in 14 982 patients and eight active interventions (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), the gamma-amino butyric acid analogue pregabalin, aerobic exercise, balneotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), multicomponent therapy) were included. Most of the trials were small and hampered by methodological quality, introducing heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network. When restricted to large trials with ≥100 patients per group, heterogeneity was low and benefits for SNRIs and pregabalin compared with placebo were statistically significant, but small and not clinically relevant. For non-pharmacological interventions, only one large trial of CBT was available. In medium-sized trials with ≥50 patients per group, multicomponent therapy showed small to moderate benefits over placebo, followed by aerobic exercise and CBT.
CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of pharmacological treatments in FMS are of questionable clinical relevance and evidence for benefits of non-pharmacological interventions is limited. A combination of pregabalin or SNRIs as pharmacological interventions and multicomponent therapy, aerobic exercise and CBT as non-pharmacological interventions seems most promising for the management of FMS.
Objective: To determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has an analgesic effect greater than placebo or other treatments in patients with fibromyalgia. Furthermore, it was intended to analyze the optimal application parameters to achieve a greater reduction of pain. Design: A systematic review. Data source: Randomized clinical trials on the effect of TENS on fibromyalgia in the databases Pubmed, Cochrane and PEDro until November 2016. Selection of studies: 8 studies out of a total of 62 were selected. Controlled clinical trials in which TENS was applied in patients with fibromyalgia were included. Data extraction: Pain was analyzed as the main variable, although other variables such as fatigue, quality of life and impact, range of motion and depression were also included. Results: 6 out of 8 studies obtained a significant decrease of pain. In 2 studies, TENS was applied as complementary treatment to therapeutic exercise with results evidencing a decrease in pain. The rest of the variables studied presented a great variability and conclusive results could not be established. Conclusions: Treatment with TENS is effective for reducing pain in people with fibromyalgia. In addition, the inclusion of TENS in therapeutic exercise programs seems to have a greater effect than practicing therapeutic exercise in isolation. However, no efficacy has been demonstrated in other variables different to pain. Further studies are needed to investigate the optimization of the parameters of the TENS and a greater consensus among the variables used
