ArticleJournal of pain research2019
Impact of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on sleep in chronic low back pain: a real-world retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04617197 (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation With Frequency Specific Microcurrent Resonance Therapy for Non Specific Chronic Low Back Pain Patents), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation With Frequency Specific Microcurrent Resonance Therapy for Non Specific Chronic Low Back Pain Patents: a Prospective Double Blinded, Randomized, Placebo Control Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Age-Limited Effects of Low-Frequency Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation on Insomnia: A 4-Week Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2022Article
- Resolving Long-Standing Uncertainty about the Clinical Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) to Relieve Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Factors Influencing Outcome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Effects of Wearable Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for the Long-Term Treatment of Ocular Pain.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2020Article
- Remote Analgesic Effects Of Conventional Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation: A Scientific And Clinical Review With A Focus On Chronic Pain.Journal of pain research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine if transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) improves sleep in chronic low back pain (CLBP).
backgroundThere is uncertainty over the effectiveness of TENS in CLBP. In most studies, pain intensity has been the primary outcome measure. Although sleep abnormalities are common in CLBP, sleep outcomes have not been evaluated in most studies of TENS effectiveness. Subjective and objective sleep measures are often inconsistent in CLBP, suggesting that perception of sleep and actual sleep may differ.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated TENS for CLBP over 10 weeks. The source database included demographics, pain characteristics, pain intensity and interference on an 11-point numerical rating scale, adherence and actigraphic sleep data from real-world TENS users. Key inclusion criteria were CLBP with self-reported history of back injury and baseline pain interference with sleep ≥4. Study participants were stratified into improved and unimproved groups based on changes in pain interference with sleep (improved ≥1-point decrease). Actigraphic sleep metrics were compared between the two groups for weeks 1-2 and weeks 9-10.
resultsThe inclusion criteria were met by 554 TENS users. There were 282 (50.9%) participants in the improved group and 272 (49.1%) in the unimproved group. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics and high TENS adherence. At the weeks 1-2 assessment, there were no differences among actigraphic sleep. At the weeks 9-10 assessment, there was a difference in total sleep time, with the improved group sleeping 29 minutes longer. In addition, the periodic leg movement (PLM) index was lower in the improved group.
conclusionRegular TENS improved self-reported and objective sleep measures in individuals with CLBP. When compared to the unimproved group, the improved group had longer total sleep time and fewer PLMs. Sleep may be an important outcome for TENS effectiveness in CLBP.
Indexed as
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.