Eficácia analgésica e mecanismos de ação da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea: revisão sistemática e ensaio clínico randomizado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-invasive therapy that has been widely used for pathologies. However, this effect is correlated with opioid control and repeated stimulation of opioid receptors can lead to the development of analgesic tolerance with loss of therapeutic efficacy. The objective of study 1 was to carry out a systematic review to evaluate the action buttons induced by TENS with analgesic function in animals for a better understanding of their protocols and consequent results. Relevant articles were identified through a search of the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, Medline, Science Direct, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar, which was performed by two independent investigators through February 2021. Risk of bias included studies recording the RoB tool for animal intervention studies. To assess the quality of the study, the CAMARADES checklist was used. For meta-analyses with continuous results, we tested the effects of low- and high- frequency TENS compared to control groups, as well as low-frequency versus high-frequency TENS. A total of 6,984 titles were found and, after a thorough analysis, 53 studies were included for analysis. The results indicated that TENS has a substantial scientific basis for its hypoalgesic effect in preclinical studies. In addition, with the systematic analysis it was possible to assess the effectiveness, the limits of effectiveness, the need for further animal experiments and the design of any subsequent clinical trial, easing translational challenges. The aim of study 2 was to investigate whether repeated daily administration of TENS increasing intensity can delay analgesic tolerance in patients with chronic pain. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that included 64 subjects with knee osteoarthritis allocated into two groups (active TENS or placebo TENS). High-frequency TENS treatment (100 Hz), 100 μs pulse duration at maximum sensory intensity tolerated was applied daily to the knee, five days a week, for four weeks, for 20 minutes. The intensity was increased with each session. Placebo stimulation (no stimulation) was of the same duration. The following were evaluated: pain intensity (11-point numeric scale), pressure pain threshold (LDP-algometry), motor performance (up and go test - TUG and multidimensional pain assessment (McGill Pain Questionnaire). of pain on each day of treatment when active TENS was used. However, it was necessary to increase the current intensity over time to maintain the effectiveness of TENS and reduce pain. In addition, the time required to complete the TUG test suffered significantly in the active TENS group compared to placebo TENS. These data suggest that repeated daily application of TENS decreases pain intensity in an intensity-increasing manner.
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 | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".