Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or as additional therapy on chronic post-stroke spasticity: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 623-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Allein Zago Marcolino ◽  
Melina Hauck ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Jociane Schardong ◽  
Aline de Souza Pagnussat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Additional Therapy

scholarly journals Neuromodulation techniques for acute and preventive migraine treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Moisset ◽  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
Daniel Ciampi de Andrade ◽  
Denys Fontaine ◽  
Michel Lantéri-Minet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Migraine Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods. Methods We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high. Conclusion Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.

A comparison of the effects of electroacupuncture versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for pain control in knee osteoarthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 096452842092119
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Shi ◽  
Wenjing Yu ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Tong Wang ◽  
Oyunerdene Battulga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background To compare the effectiveness of electroacupuncture (EA) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain control in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods Four English (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) and three Chinese (China Science Journal Citation Report (VIP), Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)) language databases were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing four approaches: EA, TENS, medication and sham/placebo controls. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), numeric-rating scale (NRS) or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale. Classic pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to integrate the treatment efficacy/effectiveness through direct and indirect evidence. Results Thirteen studies were included. In the direct meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant overall effect of EA (mean difference (MD) −4.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) −12.51 to 2.96), while the overall effects of high-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (H-TENS) (MD −16.63, 95% CI −24.57 to −8.69) and medication (MD −7.12, 95% CI −12.07 to −2.17) were statistically significant. In the network meta-analyses, the relative effect of the EA and H-TENS groups (MD 5.07, 95% CI −11.33 to 21.93) on pain control did not differ. Meanwhile, H-TENS demonstrated the highest probability of being the first best treatment, and EA had the second highest probability. Conclusion The present analysis indicated that both EA and TENS exert significant pain relieving effects in KOA. Among the four treatments, H-TENS was found to be the optimal treatment choice for the management of KOA pain in the short-term, and EA the second best treatment option. Given that the application of TENS is recommended by various international guidelines for the treatment of KOA, EA may also represent a potentially effective non-pharmacologic therapy.

scholarly journals Cognitive rehabilitation interventions after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Zhao ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Adam A. Dmytriw ◽  
Xiao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cognitive Rehabilitation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and 53.4% of stroke survivors suffer from post-stroke cognitive impairment. Post-stroke cognitive impairment can increase hospitalization rate and cost of care and decrease the quality of life of stroke patients. To date, multiple cognitive rehabilitation interventions have been tested in stroke populations with post-stroke cognitive impairment. However, the most efficacious intervention has not been established. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment. Methods We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and clinical trial registries to identify eligible randomized clinical trials with no restrictions in the date of publication and language. Studies conducted with patients aged 18 or over, with the presence of cognitive impairment after being diagnosed with stroke will be included. Studies will be restricted to randomized controlled trials comparing a cognitive rehabilitation intervention with another intervention. The primary outcome is any clinical changes in the general or specific cognitive domain (e.g., executive function, attention, memory, or perception). The secondary outcomes that will be collected include adverse effects (e.g., stroke, disability, or mortality) and quality of life. Two independent reviewers will assess articles to identify trials eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies will also be done independently. Any discrepancies will be solved by discussion, or a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary. A meta-analysis will be carried out if appropriate. Discussion This systematic review for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment will assess the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions. And our results will help clinical decision-making and support the development of clinical practice guidelines. Trial registration Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020173988

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document