ReviewCureus2024
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Various Outcomes in Emergency Department Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Electromagnetic Fields, Electrical Stimulation, and Vacuum Simultaneously Applied for Major Burn Scars.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain is a prevalent complaint in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Traditional pharmacological methods for pain relief, such as opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), have notable side effects and risks. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological alternative that has shown promise in various clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TENS for pain management and other outcomes in ED settings. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted across six major databases: PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from inception until June 25, 2024. Randomized clinical trials involving the use of TENS in ED settings were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. The search yielded 3,569 papers, of which 2,889 were screened after removing duplicates. Thirteen full-text articles were reviewed, and seven studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, with five of these suitable for meta-analysis. The studies demonstrated that TENS significantly reduced pain, heart rate, and the requirement for rescue medication in some cases, while also improving patient satisfaction and overall well-being. However, no significant changes were observed in blood pressure. The quality of the included studies varied, with some failing to meet the criteria for blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. TENS is an effective non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in ED settings, with additional benefits such as reduced heart rate and increased patient satisfaction. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings and better understand the potential of TENS in acute care environments.
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.