MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593993178 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002823

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for knee osteoarthritis

2000· review· en· W1593993178 on OpenAlexaff
Manathip Osiri, Vivian Welch, Lucie Brosseau, Beverley Shea, Jessie McGowan, Peter Tugwell, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlindingTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisCochrane LibraryMEDLINEClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCINAHLStrictly standardized mean differenceInternal medicinePsychological interventionAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease that affects synovial joints, which mainly causes degeneration and destruction of hyaline cartilage. To date, no curative treatment for OA exists. The primary goals for OA therapy are to relieve pain, maintain or improve functional status, and minimize deformity. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a noninvasive modality in physiotherapy that is commonly used to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions. A number of trials evaluating the efficacy of TENS in OA have been published. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of TENS in the treatment of knee OA. The primary outcomes of interest were those described by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) 3, which included pain relief, functional status, patient global assessment, and change in joint imaging for studies of one year or longer. The secondary objective was to determine the most effective mode of TENS application in pain control. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HEALTHSTAR, PEDro, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register using the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group search strategy for trials up to and including December 1999. We also hand-searched reference lists and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers selected the trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data using standardized forms and assessed the quality of randomization, blinding and dropouts. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any differences. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks (RR) were calculated. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) of the change from baseline were calculated. A fixed effects model was used unless heterogeneity of the populations existed. In this case, a random effects model was used. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were eligible to be included in this review. Six used TENS as the active treatment while one study used acupuncture-like TENS (AL-TENS). A number of 148 and 146 patients were involved in the active TENS treatment and placebo, respectively. Three studies were cross-over studies and the others were parallel group, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Median methodological quality of these studies was two. Pain relief from active TENS and AL-TENS treatment was significantly better than placebo treatment. Knee stiffness also improved significantly in active treatment group compared to placebo. Different modes of TENS setting (High Rate and Strong Burst Mode TENS) demonstrated a significant benefit in pain relief of the knee OA over placebo. Subgroup analyses showed a heterogeneity in the studies with methodological quality of three or more and those with repeated TENS applications. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: TENS and AL-TENS are shown to be effective in pain control over placebo in this review. Heterogeneity of the included studies was observed, which might be due to the different study designs and outcomes used. More well designed studies with a standardized protocol and adequate number of participants are needed to conclude the effectiveness of TENS in the treatment of OA of the knee.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations262
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207