Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Facci,Ligia Maria
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Nowotny,Jean Paulus, Tormem,Fabio, Trevisani,Virgínia Fernandes Moça
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802011000400003
Resumo: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P &gt; 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
id APM-1_e15d4adc056ec40f59275bdd525b4f72
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1516-31802011000400003
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trialPhysical therapy/specialtyRehabilitationElectric stimulation therapyBack painSpineCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P &gt; 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802011000400003Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.129 n.4 2011reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFacci,Ligia MariaNowotny,Jean PaulusTormem,FabioTrevisani,Virgínia Fernandes Moçaeng2011-09-21T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802011000400003Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2011-09-21T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
spellingShingle Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Facci,Ligia Maria
Physical therapy/specialty
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
title_short Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_sort Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
author Facci,Ligia Maria
author_facet Facci,Ligia Maria
Nowotny,Jean Paulus
Tormem,Fabio
Trevisani,Virgínia Fernandes Moça
author_role author
author2 Nowotny,Jean Paulus
Tormem,Fabio
Trevisani,Virgínia Fernandes Moça
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Facci,Ligia Maria
Nowotny,Jean Paulus
Tormem,Fabio
Trevisani,Virgínia Fernandes Moça
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Physical therapy/specialty
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
topic Physical therapy/specialty
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P &gt; 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802011000400003
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802011000400003
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.129 n.4 2011
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1754209263014641664