MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913205014 · doi:10.1093/pm/pny278

The Effect of Electric Stimulation Techniques on Pain and Tenderness at the Myofascial Trigger Point: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2913205014 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ahmed, Christopher Haddad, Shoba Subramaniam, Shereen Khattab, Dinesh Kumbhare

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectroacupunctureMyofascial painMyofascial pain syndromeAcupunctureStimulationPhysical therapyTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain is a prevalent chronic pain disorder, affecting a large proportion of the general population. Electric stimulation techniques such as transcutaneous electric stimulation (TENS) and electroacupuncture have been shown to be effective for managing chronic pain conditions including myofascial pain. The goal of this study was to review the literature on the effectiveness of electric stimulation techniques on myofascial pain. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search of three databases-Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL-was conducted using key words related to myofascial pain and trigger points, as well as various electric stimulation techniques. A total of 15 articles passed the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Data were extracted from these studies and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were computed from pain intensity measures extracted from these studies. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the effectiveness of treatment modality, number of treatment sessions, frequency of stimulation, location of treatment, and duration of treatment. RESULTS: The SMD for electric stimulation techniques on reported pain intensity was significant (P = 0.03), as was the SMD for the electroacupuncture subgroup (P = 0.02); the TENS subgroups' effect was not significant (P = 0.17). The subgroup analyses tentatively suggest that frequency and number of treatments do not influence pain intensity, whereas the duration of treatment may have an effect. The qualitative results of this study revealed variability in the results among studies delivering TENS treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Electric stimulation is effective at mitigating reported pain intensity at the location of the trigger point. Electroacupuncture presented with significant and larger effect sizes of improvement relative to TENS for reported pain intensity. Given that this review included a small number of studies, there is a need for additional research to confirm its findings. Additionally, studies assessing the parameters and physiological location of treatment are needed to inform the clinical use and recommendations of electric stimulation treatments.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207