The effect of EMS, IFC, and TENS on patient-reported outcome measures for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Transcutaneous electrotherapies have been widely used to treat CLBP but, with the partial exception of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), their effect on pain, disability, quality-of-life, and psychosocial outcomes have not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to clarify the overall effect of transcutaneous electrotherapies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CLBP patients. Methods: Four databases and two study registries were searched for studies that utilized transcutaneous electrotherapies as a primary intervention for CLBP, compared against active or passive controls. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Studies were grouped by intervention vs. comparison, and by time of follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate. Results: A total of 89 full-text were assessed for eligibility; 14 studies were included, with 6 in the meta-analyses (all TENS or mixed TENS). Pain: meta-analyses revealed no significant difference for TENS vs. active control, TENS vs. passive control, or mixed TENS vs. active control at post-intervention, nor for mixed TENS vs. active control at 1-month post-intervention. Interferential current (IFC) was more effective than active control (2 studies), while electromyostimulation (EMS) was generally superior to passive, but not active, controls (6 studies). Disability: Meta-analyses revealed no significant difference for TENS vs. active control at post-intervention, mixed TENS vs. active control at post-intervention, or mixed TENS vs. active control at 1-month post-intervention. IFC was more effective than active control (2 studies), while the EMS results were mixed (6 studies). We were unable to perform meta-analyses for quality-of-life or psychosocial outcomes. Conclusion: evidence that EMS is superior to passive but not active controls for improving pain, and similar to all controls for improving disability. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=452851, Identifier (CRD42023452851).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".