Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2026
Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Acute Back Pain in Emergency Department Patients.
Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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
backgroundMusculoskeletal back pain is a common presenting complaint to emergency departments (ED) worldwide. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as an adjunct to standard care in reducing pain for patients presenting with acute low back pain.
methodsThis study has a dual-center, open-label, cluster-randomized controlled trial design. Participants were recruited from two tertiary-care EDs in Canada. We included patients with acute or acute-on-chronic back pain of < 3 weeks duration. Participants were randomized to receive either TENS for 30 minutes plus standard care, or standard care alone. We measured pain scores using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes after initiation of the intervention. The primary outcome was the difference in mean VAS pain scores at 60 minutes between the two groups.
resultsOf 94 patients considered, we enrolled 25 participants (15 control and 10 intervention). The group receiving TENS plus standard care showed a statistically significant reduction in pain scores compared to the standard care alone group at both the 30-minute (relative mean difference: 22.6%; absolute difference: 1.7 points on 10-point VAS (95% CI, -31.9%, -13.4%, P < .001) and 60-minute timepoints (relative mean difference 18.2%, absolute difference 1.4 points (-32.7%, -3.8%, P = .04). There were two return visits in the intervention group within two weeks from the index visit, and two patients reported slight discomfort with using TENS, although they kept the device on for the duration of the trial period.
conclusionThe addition of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to standard care resulted in a modest but statistically significant reduction in pain scores for patients with acute back pain in the ED setting, although it did not meet our predefined threshold of clinical significance. Further research with larger sample sizes is required to clarify the effect size and role of TENS for acute back pain in the ED waiting room.
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.