Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Electrotherapy for neck pain

  1. Peter Kroeling1,*,
  2. Anita Gross2,
  3. Nadine Graham3,
  4. Stephen J Burnie4,
  5. Grace Szeto5,
  6. Charles H Goldsmith6,
  7. Ted Haines7,
  8. Mario Forget8

Editorial Group: Cochrane Back and Neck Group

Published Online: 26 AUG 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 17 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004251.pub5


How to Cite

Kroeling P, Gross A, Graham N, Burnie SJ, Szeto G, Goldsmith CH, Haines T, Forget M. Electrotherapy for neck pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD004251. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004251.pub5.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Dept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, D-81377 München, Germany

  2. 2

    McMaster University, School of Rehabilitation Science & Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  3. 3

    McMaster University, School of Rehabilitation Science, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  4. 4

    Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Department of Clinical Education, Toronto, ON, Canada

  5. 5

    The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

  6. 6

    Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Burnaby, BC, Canada

  7. 7

    McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  8. 8

    Department of National Defense (DND), Department of Physiotherapy, Kingston, ON, Canada

*Peter Kroeling, Dept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Marchionini-Str. 17, D-81377 München, D-80801, Germany. kroeling@med.uni-muenchen.de.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 26 AUG 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 4 TENS versus placebo or sham, outcome: 4.1 pain intensity at post-treatment.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, outcome: 8.4 pain intensity at IT (6-month) follow-up.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, outcome: 8.5 function at IT (6-month) follow-up.
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, outcome: 8.6 patient satisfaction at post-treatment.
[Figure 7]
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 12 Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) versus placebo ultrasound, outcome: 12.2 pain and function at ST follow-up.
[Figure 8]
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 13 Static magnetic field (necklace) versus placebo, outcome: 13.1 pain intensity at post-treatment.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Modulated Galvanic current versus placebo, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Modulated Galvanic current versus placebo, Outcome 2 patient rated improvement at post treatment.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Iontophoresis versus no treatment, Outcome 1 neck pain at post treatment.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Iontophoresis versus no treatment, Outcome 2 headache at post treatment.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Iontophoresis versus comparison, Outcome 1 neck pain at post treatment.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 TENS versus placebo or sham, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 TENS versus placebo or sham, Outcome 2 pain intensity at ST follow-up.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 TENS versus placebo or sham, Outcome 3 pressure pain threshold at post treatment.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 TENS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 TENS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 2 pain intensity at IT (6 month) follow-up.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 2 pain at IT (5 month) follow-up.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 3 function at post treatment.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 4 function at IT (5 month) follow-up.
[Analysis 6.5]
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 5 QoL at post treatment.
[Analysis 6.6]
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 TENS versus comparison, Outcome 6 QoL at IT (5 month) follow-up.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 EMS versus placebo, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 EMS versus placebo, Outcome 2 pressure pain threshold at post treatment.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 1 pain intensity at IT (6month) follow-up.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 2 function at IT (6 months) follow-up.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 3 patient satisfaction at post treatment.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 4 pain intensity at IT (6month) follow-up.
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 5 function at IT (6 months) follow-up.
[Analysis 8.6]
Analysis 8.6. Comparison 8 EMS + another intervention versus that same intervention, Outcome 6 patient satisfaction at post treatment.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 EMS (inferential current) versus no treatment, Outcome 1 neck pain at post treatment.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 EMS (inferential current) versus no treatment, Outcome 2 headache at post treatment.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 2 pain intensity at ST follow-up.
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 3 function at post treatment.
[Analysis 10.4]
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 4 function at ST follow-up.
[Analysis 10.5]
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 5 global percieved effect at post treatment.
[Analysis 10.6]
Analysis 10.6. Comparison 10 PEMF (low frequency) versus sham, Outcome 6 global percieved effect at ST follow-up.
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 PEMF (low frequency) versus comparison, Outcome 1 neck pain at post treatment.
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) versus placebo ultrasound, Outcome 1 pain/function at post treatment.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) versus placebo ultrasound, Outcome 2 pain/function at ST follow-up.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) versus placebo ultrasound, Outcome 3 headache at post treatment.
[Analysis 13.1]
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Static magnetic field (necklace) versus placebo, Outcome 1 pain intensity at post treatment.
[Analysis 13.2]
Analysis 13.2. Comparison 13 Static magnetic field (necklace) versus placebo, Outcome 2 global perceived effect at post treatment.