Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26770730›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2014

A systematic review investigating the relationship between efficacy and stimulation parameters when using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation after knee arthroplasty.

David Beckwée, Ivan Bautmans, Eva Swinnen, Yorick Vermet, Nina Lefeber, Pierre Lievens, Peter Vaes

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04209673 (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

NCT04209673 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Alleviation in Perioperative Fracture Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2020 to 2025Enrolled205ConditionsMusculoskeletal PainArmsMultimodal Pain management including TENS unit, Multimodal Pain management not including TENS unit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David BeckwéeRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Ivan BautmansGerontology and Frailty in Ageing Research Departments, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Eva SwinnenRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Yorick VermetRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Nina LefeberRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Pierre LievensRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Peter VaesRehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of postoperative knee arthroplasty pain and to relate these results to the stimulation parameters used. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Pedro and Web of Knowledge were systematically screened for studies investigating effects of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation on postoperative knee arthroplasty pain. REVIEW

methodsStudies were screened for their methodological and therapeutical quality. We appraised the influence of the stimulation settings used and indicated whether or not a neurophysiological and/or mechanistic rationale was given for these stimulation settings.

resultsA total of 5 articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, 347 patients were investigated. The number of patients who received some form of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation was 117, and 54 patients received sham transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation. Pain was the primary outcome in all studies. The stimulation settings used in the studies (n = 2) that reported significant effects differed from the others as they implemented a submaximal stimulation intensity. Stimulation parameters were heterogeneous, and only one study provided a rationale for them.

conclusionThis review reveals that an effect of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation might have been missed due to low methodological and therapeutical quality. Justifying the choice of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation parameters may improve therapeutical quality.

Indexed as

knee arthroplastypainTranscutaneous electric nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID26770730
PMCPMC4607225
OpenAlexW2154063077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.