Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611674›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine in Sport and Companion Animals: Electrotherapy.

Heli K Hyytiäinen, Anna Boström, Kjell Asplund, Anna Bergh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Heli K HyytiäinenDepartment of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 57, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7903-1672
Anna BoströmDepartment of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 57, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4593-3838
Kjell AsplundDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, SE 901 87 Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6710-4152
Anna BerghDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5567-6249
University of Helsinki · FISwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SEUmeå University · SE

Funding

SLU Future One Health SLU.ua.2020.4.2-3148.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980-2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Indexed as

bioelectricityelectrotherapyinterferenceneural electrical muscle stimulationpercutaneous electrical nerve stimulationpulsed electromagnetic field therapysport and companion animalsstatic magnettranscutaneous electrical stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36611674
PMCPMC9817672
OpenAlexW4312205751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.