The effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapy on shoulder impingement syndrome: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) is a common condition that causes pain and functional impairment in the shoulder. There have been various studies assessing methods of pain management in SIS, however, the knowledge around the association between transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and SIS management has been found to be limited. A systematic review of the literature will provide healthcare providers and the public with an evidence-based summary of evidence regarding the effectiveness of TENS in treating SIS pain. Objective To systematically assess and review the methodological rigour of all available studies that have used TENS to treat SIS in order to provide evidence-based knowledge to either support or refute its use in clinical practice. Methods A literature search was conducted on electronic databases Google, Google scholar and DUT Summons (Pubmed, MEDLine, Mantis, ScienceDirect). The relevant key search words used at this stage of the study included the term “TENS” and each of the following: shoulder pain, frozen shoulder, calcific tendonitis, shoulder impingement syndrome, shoulder myofascial pain syndrome, brachial dysfunction, shoulder dysfunction and shoulder bursitis. It was identified that SIS would be the focus of this study and therefore, full-text articles relevant to SIS and TENS were included, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in the study design. The final list of included articles was reviewed by a total of seven reviewers using either the PEDro and/or Newcastle-Ottawa scale, in order to establish the methodological rigour of the studies. Results During the data collection process that took place between August 2019 to January 2020, 106 articles were screened for eligibility. Patients included in these studies were adults who were required to have been diagnosed with SIS. These articles included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT’s, case studies and case reports. The 106 articles were reduced to 20 articles meeting the inclusion criteria, consisting of 19 RCTs and 1 non-RCT. Following the conclusion of the data collection process, the articles collectively were divided into three groups. Screening and review of the articles were conducted by the three reviewers allocated to each group. Each article was then ranked according to the criteria outlined in the PEDro and/or Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the limitations of each article were stated. Following this process, the findings of all articles were collated, with the results indicating that there is limited evidence to support the use of TENS in the management of SIS. Conclusion Even though TENS has been found to be effective in inducing pain relief in a variety of conditions, clinicians should use TENS with caution as the limited and conflicting evidence available does not advocate for its use (alone or in combination with other therapies) in treating SIS. Thus, there is a demand for more high-quality studies pertaining to TENS and SIS clinical subcategories. It is however recognised that the findings of this study may be limited to a specific time period and could be influenced by more recently published studies not included. Key words Shoulder pain, Frozen shoulder, Calcific tendonitis, Shoulder impingement syndrome, shoulder myofascial pain syndrome, Brachial dysfunction, shoulder dysfunction, shoulder bursitis, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».