Effect of different electric stimulation modalities on pain and functionality of patients with pelvic pain: Systematic review with META‐analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effect of different electric stimulation modalities on pain and functionality of patients with pelvic pain: Systematic review with META‐analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mendes, Camilla F., Oliveira, Luciene S., Garcez, Priscila A., Azevedo‐Santos, Isabela F., DeSantana, Josimari M. |
| Source: | Pain Practice. Jan2025, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p1-19. 19p. |
| Subjects: | Pelvic pain treatment, Pain measurement, Physical therapy, Fatigue (Physiology), CINAHL database, Functional status, Treatment effectiveness, Meta-analysis, Descriptive statistics, Motivation (Psychology), Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Electric stimulation, Quality of life, Medical databases, Online information services, Data analysis software, Physical activity |
| Geographic Terms: | Brazil |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Pelvic pain is located in the anterior abdominal wall, below the umbilical scar. Its treatment includes pharmacological therapy, which can cause adverse effects and is not always sufficient to control symptoms. Thus, the use of adjunct therapies such as electric stimulation has been suggested. Therefore, this review intends to appraise the literature on the effectiveness of electrostimulation in the treatment of pelvic pain. Methods: The search for studies was conducted until April 2024 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, SciELO, PEDro, CINAHL, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using a combination of Mesh terms "Electric Stimulation" and "Pelvic Pain." Risk of bias assessment and meta‐analysis were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration tool (RevMan 5.4). Quality of the evidence was assessed with GRADE tool. Results: From the 3247 studies found, 19 were included. In the qualitative analysis, seven studies showed TENS, electroacupuncture, PTNS, and tDCS reduced pain intensity, one study on PTNS showed increased quality of life, and one on tDCS showed improved functional performance. However, in the meta‐analysis, only TENS showed efficacy for the reduction of acute pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea. Conclusion: Our results indicate that there is moderate‐quality evidence for TENS to reduce pain intensity in primary dysmenorrhea and low‐quality evidence for the same outcome in acute pelvic pain. Randomized controlled clinical trials with larger sample size and with better methodological quality are needed to establish the effectiveness of other forms of electrical stimulation in pelvic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Pain Practice is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Introduction: Pelvic pain is located in the anterior abdominal wall, below the umbilical scar. Its treatment includes pharmacological therapy, which can cause adverse effects and is not always sufficient to control symptoms. Thus, the use of adjunct therapies such as electric stimulation has been suggested. Therefore, this review intends to appraise the literature on the effectiveness of electrostimulation in the treatment of pelvic pain. Methods: The search for studies was conducted until April 2024 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, SciELO, PEDro, CINAHL, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using a combination of Mesh terms "Electric Stimulation" and "Pelvic Pain." Risk of bias assessment and meta‐analysis were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration tool (RevMan 5.4). Quality of the evidence was assessed with GRADE tool. Results: From the 3247 studies found, 19 were included. In the qualitative analysis, seven studies showed TENS, electroacupuncture, PTNS, and tDCS reduced pain intensity, one study on PTNS showed increased quality of life, and one on tDCS showed improved functional performance. However, in the meta‐analysis, only TENS showed efficacy for the reduction of acute pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea. Conclusion: Our results indicate that there is moderate‐quality evidence for TENS to reduce pain intensity in primary dysmenorrhea and low‐quality evidence for the same outcome in acute pelvic pain. Randomized controlled clinical trials with larger sample size and with better methodological quality are needed to establish the effectiveness of other forms of electrical stimulation in pelvic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15307085 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/papr.13417 |
