The effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on tissue repair: A literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) consists of a generic application of low-frequency, pulsed electrical currents transmitted by electrodes through the skin surface. It is a therapeutic modality that is nonpharmacological, noninvasive, inexpensive, easy to use and widely applied in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To narratively review the scientific evidence of the effects of TENS on tissue repair with respect to wound healing, skin flap viability and tendinous repair. METHODS: The study was conducted using the MEDLINE, Lilacs and Scielo databases, without limit to the period of publication, and was completed in November 2011. Inclusion criteria were randomized or nonrandomized, controlled or noncontrolled clinical trials, and experimental trials involving rats subjected to TENS for tissue repair. RESULTS: Thirty articles on tissue repair were found and, among these, 14 reported on wound healing, 14 reported on skin flaps and two analyzed tedinous repair. DISCUSSION: It was suggested that TENS stimulates skin wound healing and tendon repair, as well as the viability of random skin flaps. Such effects may be due to the release of substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide, which would increase blood flow and, consequently, hasten the events leading to tissue repair. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the scientific evidence regarding the effects of TENS on tissue repair, the findings of the present literature review were inconclusive because data from the randomized controlled clinical trials were insufficient to confirm such effects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it