↓ Skip to main content

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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 328 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 17%
Student > Bachelor 56 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 12%
Other 37 11%
Researcher 35 10%
Other 74 22%
Unknown 39 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 14%
Psychology 17 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 42 12%
Unknown 52 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#592,087
of 14,158,001 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,768
of 10,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,064
of 120,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,158,001 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 10,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 120,946 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 125 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 94% of its contemporaries.