ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Efficacy of Adjunctive Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Patients with Spastic Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in patients with cerebral palsy (CP) have been investigated in only a few randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). However, to date, no systematic review has synthesised the findings from these studies. Methods: To identify controlled clinical trials (randomized/non-randomized) investigating the effectiveness and safety of TENS in patients with spastic CP, relevant electronic databases were searched using appropriate MESH terms. The primary objectives of this review were to compare the changes in gross motor function, spasticity, hand function, gait parameters, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), self-reported pain, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) between the TENS and control groups. The Mantel Haenszel method determined the pooled estimate with a random or fixed-effect model. Results: The review included seven clinical trials, with a total of 154 participants in the TENS group and 138 participants in the control group. The TENS interventions varied, with current ranging from 3 to 50 mA (median-15 mA), stimulation frequency from 2 to 50 Hz (median-20 Hz), and pulse duration from 0.25 to 250 ms (median-200 ms). The treatments were generally administered daily for 1 to 8 weeks (median-6 weeks). The results showed that the TENS group exhibited greater improvements in gross motor function, gait velocity, hand function, spasticity of targeted muscle, handgrip strength, and HRQOL compared to the control group (p < 0.0001, 0.03, 0.02, < 0.0001, 0.03, and 0.01 respectively). The incidence of TEAEs was rare, mild, and self-resolving, and no significant difference was observed between the TENS and control groups (p = 0.72). Conclusion: The findings suggest that TENS may offer some benefits in improving spasticity and motor function in patients with cerebral palsy. However, it is important to note that more high-quality RCTs are required before making a definitive conclusion.
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.