ReviewJMA journal2023
Efficacy and Safety of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in JMA journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- A new approach to mesh fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal technique, "suture passer", superior or not?Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- The Impact of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on Acute Pain and Other Postoperative Outcomes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative pain is a major cause of delayed recovery following inguinal hernia repair. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a simple, low-cost method of noninvasive analgesia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of TENS for pain management following inguinal hernia repair. Methods: We searched nine electronic databases and trial registries to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were postoperative pain and the use of rescue analgesics. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included trials. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the anesthesia type or TENS dose and frequency. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022353932). Results: Eleven RCTs, with a total of 559 patients, were included. The overall risk of bias was concerning due to the lack of information about concealment or published protocols. TENS may reduce pain on postoperative day (POD) 0 (standardized mean difference [SMD], -2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.54 to -0.73; moderate certainty of the evidence), POD 1 (SMD, -1.22; 95% CI, -1.92 to -0.52; moderate certainty of the evidence), and POD 2 (SMD, -0.97; 95% CI, -2.04 to 0.10; low certainty of the evidence). According to the subgroup analyses, postoperative pain was reduced, particularly with local anesthesia or repetitive and frequent TENS ( Conclusions: TENS may reduce pain in patients who have undergone inguinal hernia repair. Further trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
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.