ArticleChiropractic & osteopathy2007
The effectiveness of ENAR for the treatment of chronic neck pain in Australian adults: a preliminary single-blind, randomised controlled trial.
Article in Chiropractic & osteopathy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Electrotherapy for neck pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Effects of a Single Application of ScenarJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A postmarket surveillance study on electro-neuro-adaptive-regulator therapy.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2014Article
- Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent evidence on electrotherapies for the management of chronic neck pain is either lacking or conflicting. New therapeutic devices being introduced to the market should be investigated for their effectiveness and efficacy. The ENAR (Electro Neuro Adaptive Regulator) therapy device combines Western biofeedback with Eastern energy medicine.
methodsA small, preliminary randomised and controlled single-blinded trial was conducted on 24 participants (ten males, 14 females) between the ages of 18 to 50 years (median age of 40.5) Consent was obtained and participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups--ENAR, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), or control therapy--to test the hypothesis that ENAR therapy would result in superior pain reduction/disability and improvements in neck function compared with TENS or control intervention. The treatment regimen included twelve 15-minute treatment sessions over a six week period, followed by two assessment periods. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) scores and Short Form 36v1 (SF-36) quality of life scores reported by participants were collected at each of the assessments points throughout the trial (0, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks).
resultsEligible participants (n = 30) were recruited and attended clinic visits for 6 months from the time of randomisation. Final trial sample (n = 24) comprised 9 within the ENAR group, 7 within the TENS group and 8 within the control group. With an overall study power of 0.92, the ENAR group showed a decrease in mean pain score from measurement at time zero (5.0 +/- 0.79 95%CI) to the first follow-up measurement at six weeks (1.4 +/- 0.83 95%CI). Improvement was maintained until week 24 (1.75 +/- 0.9 95%CI). The TENS and control groups showed consistent pain levels throughout the trial (3.4 +/- 0.96 95%CI and 4.1 +/- 0.9 95%CI respectively). Wald analysis for pain intensity was significant for the ENAR group (p = 0.01). Six month NDI scores showed the disability level of the ENAR group (11.3 +/- 4.5 95%CI) was approximately half that of either the TENS (22.9 +/- 4.8 95%CI) or the control (29.4 +/- 4.5 95%CI) groups. NDI analysis using the Wald method, indicated significant reductions in disability only for the ENAR group (p = 0.022). PSFS results also demonstrated significantly better performance of ENAR (p = 0.001) compared to both alternative interventions. Differential means analysis of the SF-36 results favoured ENAR for all of the subscales. Six of the initial 30 participants discontinued the trial protocol.
conclusionENAR therapy participants reported a significant reduction in the intensity of neck pain (VAS) and disability (NDI), as well as a significant increased function (PSFS) and overall quality of life (SF-36) than TENS or control intervention participants. Due to the modest sample size and restricted cohort characteristics, future larger and more comprehensive trials are required to better evaluate the potential efficacy of the ENAR device in a more widely distributed sample population.
trial registrationThis study has been registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTR): ACTRN012606000438550.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.