BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities.
DESIGN: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review.
RESULTS: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review.
CONCLUSION: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.
CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies may be used as a non-pharmacological approach to chronic pain management. While hundreds of trials about individual CAM modality have been conducted, a comprehensive overview of their results is currently lacking for pain clinicians and researchers.
AIM: This umbrella review synthesized the quality of meta-analytic evidence supporting the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CAM therapies for the management of chronic pain.
MATERIALS & METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched from October 1991 to November 2016. Reviews of clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) with meta-analysis investigating the utility of any CAM modality for chronic pain were eligible. Pain relief post-intervention was the main outcome and secondary outcomes included patients' adherence and incidence of adverse effects during CAM protocol.
RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews (207 clinical trials, >12,000 participants) about 18 CAM modalities, falling under natural products, mind and body practices or other complementary health approaches were included. Inhaled cannabis, graded motor imagery, and Compound Kushen injection (a form of Chinese medicine) were found the most efficient (with moderate-to-high effect sizes and low heterogeneity) and tolerable (≥80% of adherence to study protocols) for chronic pain relief. When reported, adverse effects related to these CAM were minor.
CONCLUSION: Although several CAM were found effective for chronic pain relief, it remains unclear when these modalities are a reasonable choice against or in conjunction with mainstream treatments. In that sense, future research with a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of CAM overall efficacy and patient adherence/tolerance is needed.
BACKGROUND: Physical and psychological job demands in combination with the degree of control a worker has over task completion, play an important role in reducing stress. Occupational stress is an important, modifiable factor affecting work disability. However, the effectiveness of reducing job demands or increasing job control remains unclear, particularly for outcomes of interest to employers, such as absenteeism or productivity.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review reports on job demand and control interventions that impact absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes.
METHODS: A stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis was conducted with researcher and stakeholder collaboration throughout. Databases and grey literature were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, TRIP, health-evidence.ca, Rehab+, National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and Institute for Work and Health. Articles were assessed independently by two researchers for inclusion criteria and methodological quality. Differences were resolved through consensus.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 unique titles. After review of abstracts, 115 articles were retained for full-text review. 11 articles finally met the inclusion criteria and are summarized in this synthesis. The best level of evidence we found indicates that multimodal job demand reductions for either at-work or off-work workers will reduce disability-related absenteeism.
CONCLUSION: In general, the impacts of interventions that aim to reduce job demands or increase job control can be positive for the organization in terms of reducing absenteeism, increasing productivity and cost-effectiveness. However, more high quality research is needed to further assess the relationships and quantify effect sizes for the interventions and outcomes reviewed in this study.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct an overview on psychological interventions, orthoses, patient education, ergonomics, and 1⁰/2⁰ neck pain prevention for adults with acute-chronic neck pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerized databases and grey literature were searched (2006-2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality-of-life and patient satisfaction were retrieved.
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS: Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias using AMSTAR tool and extracted data. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel to provide critical review.
MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 30 reviews (5-9 AMSTAR score) reporting on 75 RCTs with the following moderate GRADE evidence. For acute whiplash associated disorder (WAD), an education video in emergency rooms (1RCT, 405participants] favoured pain reduction at long-term follow-up thus helping 1 in 23 people [Standard Mean Difference: -0.44(95%CI: -0.66 to -0.23)). Use of a soft collar (2RCTs, 1278participants) was not beneficial in the long-term. For chronic neck pain, a mind-body intervention (2RCTs, 1 meta-analysis, 191participants) improved short-term pain/function in 1 of 4 or 6 participants. In workers, 2-minutes of daily scapula-thoracic endurance training (1RCT, 127participants) over 10 weeks was beneficial in 1 of 4 participants. A number of psychosocial interventions, workplace interventions, collar use and self-management educational strategies were not beneficial.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence exists for quantifying beneficial and non-beneficial effects of a limited number of interventions for acute WAD and chronic neck pain. Larger trials with more rigorous controls need to target promising interventions.
BACKGROUND: This article is the first in a series presenting the strongest published evidence for physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) to date coming from the Cochrane Collaboration. The intent of the series is to stimulate ideas for reviews and research in neglected areas of PRM.
AIM: To systematically review the rehabilitation contents of the Cochrane Collaboration on disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults.
METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched at the end of June 2013 for articles relevant for PRM about disabilities resulting from spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Retrieved papers were classified according to the PRM approach: active therapies, which require active participation by patients to achieve treatment goals, and passive treatments, which rely on the application of external forces. The quality of the reviews was checked against the AMSTAR checklist.
RESULTS: Reviews on spinal disorders or pain syndromes were found in the Cochrane Back Group (CBG) and in the Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (CPPSCG). Thirty-eight (42.8%) of 89 Cochrane reviews in the CBG and 7 (2.4%) of 293 Cochrane reviews in the CPPSCG were included. All were of high quality (range, 8-11 points out of 11 on the AMSTAR checklist). The contents of the reviews are given in detail.
CONCLUSION: This review presents an overview of the current evidence for PRM in the treatment of disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Within PRM there is ample space for research in the Cochrane Collaboration and for producing original studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: To apply evidence-based clinical practice, clinicians must be familiar with the current best evidence.
OBJECTIVE: This article is aimed at critically evaluating the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of spinal manipulation in patients with pain. Design: The study was designed as a SR of SRs. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant articles of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for pain. SRs were defined as articles employing a repeatable methods section. RESULTS: Twenty-two SRs relating to the following pain conditions: low back pain (N = 6), headache (N = 5), neck pain (N = 4), any medical problem (N = 1), carpal tunnel syndrome (N = 1), dysmenorrhea (N = 1), fibromyalgia (N = 1), lateral epicondylitis (N = 1), musculoskeletal conditions (N = 1) and nonspinal pain (N = 1), were included. Positive or, for multiple SR, unanimously positive conclusions were drawn for none of the conditions mentioned earlier. LIMITATION: Publication bias as a well-known phenomenon may have been inherited in this article. CONCLUSION: Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this update is to critically evaluate the evidence for or against the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in patients with any type of clinical condition.
DESIGN: Four electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any condition published between 2005 and January 2011. Reviews were defined as systematic, if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies.
RESULTS: Forty-five systematic reviews were included relating to the following conditions: low back pain (n=7), headache (n=6), neck pain (n=4), asthma (n=4), musculoskeletal conditions (n=3), any non-musculoskeletal conditions (n=2), fibromyalgia (n=2), infant colic (n=2), any medical problem (n=1), any paediatric conditions (n=1), carpal tunnel syndrome (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), dysmenorrhoea (n=1), gastrointestinal problems (n=1), hypertension (n=1), idiopathic scoliosis (n=1), lateral epicondylitis (n=1), lower extremity conditions (n=1), pregnancy and related conditions (n=1), psychological outcome (n=1), shoulder pain (n=1), upper extremity conditions (n=1) and whiplash injury (n=1). Positive or, for multiple SR, unanimously positive conclusions were drawn for psychological outcomes (n=1) and whiplash (n=1).
CONCLUSION: Collectively these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES:
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS:
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
