ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy2026
Quality of reporting electrophysical resources for post-cesarean pain relief: A scoping review.
Review in Brazilian journal of physical therapy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCesarean delivery often results in postoperative pain. Electrophysical resources have been explored for pain relief, yet understanding the characteristics of women and clinical contexts is essential for generalizability. The quality of intervention descriptions can influence reproducibility and practical application.
aimTo verify the characteristics of the women and clinical contexts in which electrophysical resources for post-cesarean pain relief are tested and to assess the quality of intervention descriptions.
methodsThis scoping review based on the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews that included studies about electrophysical resources for post-cesarean pain relief. It analyzed the characteristics of the participants, clinical contexts and integrity of intervention by Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). Analysis was performed independently by two authors, who summarized the results descriptively and through TIDieR scores.
findingsSixteen studies were included. Only 18.7% reported participants' education levels, and none presented data on ethnicity. TENS was the most used electrophysical resource, applied in 75% of the studies, and most contexts were hospital-based. Information on adverse effects was missing in 43.7% of studies, and only 25% assessed women's satisfaction. The mean TIDieR score was 13.8 (± 2.1) out of a maximum of 24 items. Items on modifications, adherence, and fidelity were not reported in any study.
conclusionThe studies provided limited descriptions about participant's characteristics, and did not provide information about adverse effects or satisfaction with the treatment. The description of the interventions lacked sufficient detail to allow for full replication, particularly regarding modifications, adherence, and fidelity of the protocols.
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.