↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
503 Mendeley
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003008.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amole Khadilkar, Daniel Oluwafemi Odebiyi, Lucie Brosseau, George A Wells

Abstract

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as a therapeutic adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite widespread use, its effectiveness in chronic low-back pain (LBP) is still controversial. To determine whether TENS is more effective than placebo for the management of chronic LBP. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CINAHL were searched up to July 19, 2007. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TENS to placebo in patients with chronic LBP were included. Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. If quantitative meta-analysis was not possible, a qualitative synthesis was performed, taking into consideration 5 levels of evidence as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Four high-quality RCTs (585 patients) met the selection criteria. Clinical heterogeneity prevented the use of meta-analysis. Therefore, a qualitative synthesis was completed. There was conflicting evidence about whether TENS was beneficial in reducing back pain intensity and consistent evidence in two trials (410 patients) that it did not improve back-specific functional status. There was moderate evidence that work status and the use of medical services did not change with treatment. Conflicting results were obtained from two studies regarding generic health status, with one study showing no improvement on the modified Sickness Impact Profile and another study showing significant improvements on several, but not all subsections of the SF-36 questionnaire. Multiple physical outcome measures lacked statistically significant improvement relative to placebo. In general, patients treated with acupuncture-like TENS responded similarly to those treated with conventional TENS. However, in two of the trials, an inadequate stimulation intensity was used for acupuncture-like TENS, given that muscle twitching was not induced. Optimal treatment schedules could not be reliably determined based on the available data. Adverse effects included minor skin irritation at the site of electrode placement. At this time, the evidence from the small number of placebo-controlled trials does not support the use of TENS in the routine management of chronic LBP. Further research is encouraged.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 503 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 494 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 77 15%
Student > Bachelor 69 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 11%
Researcher 50 10%
Other 46 9%
Other 97 19%
Unknown 110 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 176 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 16%
Psychology 20 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 3%
Sports and Recreations 15 3%
Other 67 13%
Unknown 131 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 18 September 2021.
All research outputs
#944,409
of 22,085,721 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,113
of 12,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,786
of 140,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,085,721 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 140,999 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.