Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26284511›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults.

Mark I Johnson, Matthew R Mulvey, Anne-Marie Bagnall

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05511181 (High-frequency Sinusoidal Neurostimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05511181 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

High-frequency Sinusoidal Neurostimulation (BioWave) Versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorBioWave CorporationRan2022 to 2023Enrolled120ConditionsChronic Pain, Lumbar Pain Syndrome, Low Back PainArmsBioWave, TENS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark I JohnsonFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Calverley Street, Leeds, UK, LS1 3HE.
Matthew R Mulvey
Anne-Marie Bagnall
Leeds Beckett University · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is the first update of a Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2010 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults. Pain may present in a body part that has been amputated (phantom pain) or at the site of amputation (stump pain), or both. Phantom pain and stump pain are complex and multidimensional and the underlying pathophysiology remains unclear. The condition remains a severe burden for those who are affected by it. The mainstay treatments are predominately pharmacological, with increasing acknowledgement of the need for non-drug interventions. TENS has been recommended as a treatment option but there has been no systematic review of available evidence. Hence, the effectiveness of TENS for phantom pain and stump pain is currently unknown.

objectivesTo assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS for the treatment of phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults. SEARCH

methodsFor the original version of the review we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, PEDRO and SPORTDiscus (February 2010). For this update, we searched the same databases for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 2010 to 25 March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included RCTs investigating the use of TENS for the management of phantom pain and stump pain following an amputation in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned that where available and appropriate, data from outcome measures were to be pooled and presented as an overall estimate of the effectiveness of TENS. MAIN

resultsIn the original review there were no RCTs that examined the effectiveness of TENS for the treatment of phantom pain and stump pain in adults. For this update, we did not identify any additional RCTs for inclusion. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere were no RCTs to judge the effectiveness of TENS for the management of phantom pain and stump pain. The published literature on TENS for phantom pain and stump pain lacks the methodological rigour and robust reporting needed to confidently assess its effectiveness. Further RCT evidence is required before an assessment can be made. Since publication of the original version of this review, we have found no new studies and our conclusions remain unchanged.

Indexed as

Amputation StumpsPain ManagementTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationAdultHumansPhantom Limb

Identifiers

PMID26284511
PMCPMC7209768
OpenAlexW2144337216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.