| Title |
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007264.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark I Johnson, Matthew R Mulvey, Anne-Marie Bagnall |
| Abstract |
This is the first update of a Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2010 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults. Pain may present in a body part that has been amputated (phantom pain) or at the site of amputation (stump pain), or both. Phantom pain and stump pain are complex and multidimensional and the underlying pathophysiology remains unclear. The condition remains a severe burden for those who are affected by it. The mainstay treatments are predominately pharmacological, with increasing acknowledgement of the need for non-drug interventions. TENS has been recommended as a treatment option but there has been no systematic review of available evidence. Hence, the effectiveness of TENS for phantom pain and stump pain is currently unknown. To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS for the treatment of phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults. For the original version of the review we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, PEDRO and SPORTDiscus (February 2010). For this update, we searched the same databases for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 2010 to 25 March 2015. We only included RCTs investigating the use of TENS for the management of phantom pain and stump pain following an amputation in adults. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned that where available and appropriate, data from outcome measures were to be pooled and presented as an overall estimate of the effectiveness of TENS. In the original review there were no RCTs that examined the effectiveness of TENS for the treatment of phantom pain and stump pain in adults. For this update, we did not identify any additional RCTs for inclusion. There were no RCTs to judge the effectiveness of TENS for the management of phantom pain and stump pain. The published literature on TENS for phantom pain and stump pain lacks the methodological rigour and robust reporting needed to confidently assess its effectiveness. Further RCT evidence is required before an assessment can be made. Since publication of the original version of this review, we have found no new studies and our conclusions remain unchanged. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 21% |
| Spain | 3 | 9% |
| Japan | 2 | 6% |
| Germany | 2 | 6% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 15% |
| Scientists | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 376 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 372 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 64 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 32 | 9% |
| Researcher | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 67 | 18% |
| Unknown | 105 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 62 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 4% |
| Engineering | 13 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 43 | 11% |
| Unknown | 125 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,436,379
of 23,140,503 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,280
of 12,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,286
of 266,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,140,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.