Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Data extraction and synthesis Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or >50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain. Results The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=−0·96 (95% CI −1·14 to –0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = −0·72 (95% CI −0·95 to –0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators. Conclusion There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019125054.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of immersive and non-immersive interactive virtual reality on pain perception in patients with a clinical pain condition. The following databases were searched from inception: Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Web of Science. Two reviewers screened reports and extracted the data. A third reviewer acted as an arbiter. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and uncontrolled trials. Crossover and parallel-group designs were included. Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Thirteen clinical studies were included. The majority of studies investigated a sample of participants with chronic pain. Six were controlled trials and seven uncontrolled studies. Findings from controlled research suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce pain associated with ankylosing spondylitis and post-mastectomy, but results are inconsistent for patients with neck pain. Findings from uncontrolled studies suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce neuropathic limb pain, and phantom limb pain, but had no effect on nonspecific chronic back pain. There is a need for more rigorous randomized control trials in order to conclude on the effectiveness of the use of virtual reality for the management of pain. Implications for rehabilitation Interactive virtual reality has been increasingly used in the rehabilitation of painful conditions. Interactive virtual reality using exergames may promote distraction from painful exercises and reduce pain post-mastectomy and in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Interactive virtual representation of limbs may reduce neuropathic and phantom limb pain.

Background and Objectives: Uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) to alleviate pain spans half a century. There has been no attempt to synthesise the entire body of systematic review evidence. The aim of this comprehensive review was to critically appraise the characteristics and outcomes of systematic reviews evaluating the clinical efficacy of TENS for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases for full reports of systematic reviews of studies, overviews of systematic reviews, and hybrid reviews that evaluated the efficacy of TENS for any type of clinical pain in adults. We screened reports against eligibility criteria and extracted data related to the characteristics and outcomes of the review, including effect size estimates. We conducted a descriptive analysis of extracted data. Results: We included 169 reviews consisting of eight overviews, seven hybrid reviews and 154 systematic reviews with 49 meta-analyses. A tally of authors’ conclusions found a tendency toward benefits from TENS in 69/169 reviews, no benefits in 13/169 reviews, and inconclusive evidence in 87/169 reviews. Only three meta-analyses pooled sufficient data to have confidence in the effect size estimate (i.e., pooled analysis of >500 events). Lower pain intensity was found during TENS compared with control for chronic musculoskeletal pain and labour pain, and lower analgesic consumption was found post-surgery during TENS. The appraisal revealed repeated shortcomings in RCTs that have hindered confident judgements about efficacy, resulting in stagnation of evidence. Conclusions: Our appraisal reveals examples of meta-analyses with ‘sufficient data’ demonstrating benefit. There were no examples of meta-analyses with ‘sufficient data’ demonstrating no benefit. Therefore, we recommend that TENS should be considered as a treatment option. The considerable quantity of reviews with ‘insufficient data’ and meaningless findings have clouded the issue of efficacy. We offer solutions to these issues going forward.

The consequences of chronic pain and associated disabilities to the patient and to the health care system are well known. Medication is often the first treatment of choice for chronic pain, although side effects and high costs restrict long-term use. Inexpensive, safe and easy to self-administer non-pharmacological therapies, such as mirror therapy, are recommended as adjuncts to pain treatment. The purpose of this review is to describe the principles of use of mirror therapy so it can be incorporated into a health care delivery. The physiological rationale of mirror therapy for the management of pain and the evidence of clinical efficacy based on recent systematic reviews are also discussed. Mirror therapy, whereby a mirror is placed in a position so that the patient can view a reflection of a body part, has been used to treat phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathy and low back pain. Research evidence suggests that a course of treatment (four weeks) of mirror therapy may reduce chronic pain. Contraindications and side effects are few. The mechanism of action of mirror therapy remains uncertain, with reintegration of motor and sensory systems, restored body image and control over fear-avoidance likely to influence outcome. The evidence for clinical efficacy of mirror therapy is encouraging, but not yet definitive. Nevertheless, mirror therapy is inexpensive, safe and easy for the patient to self-administer.

Introduction The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Methods and analysis We intend to search electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDRO, Web of Science, AMED and SPORTDiscus) from inception to the present day to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of TENS in adults for any type of pain including acute pain, chronic pain and cancer-related pain. We will screen the RCTs against eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently undertake RCT selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be: (i) participant-reported pain relief of ≥30% expressed as frequency (dichotomous) data; and (ii) participant-reported pain intensity expressed as mean (continuous) data. We will conduct meta-analyses to determine risk ratio for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised MD for continuous data for TENS versus placebo TENS, no treatment or waiting list control, standard of care, and other treatments. Subgroup analyses will include different pain conditions (eg, acute vs chronic), TENS intensity, during versus after TENS, TENS as a sole treatment versus TENS in combination with other treatments and TENS administered as a single dose versus repetitive dose. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will not use data from individual participants, and the results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at a conference. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019125054.