Quell bestrijdt chronische pijn met iPhone-accessoire

1. 

   Knarf

   6 januari 2015 13:33

   Goede ontwikkeling! Vraag me af of dit ook bij hoofdpijn en/of migraine kan helpen als een soort hoofdband.

2. 

   Jan

   6 januari 2015 14:25

   En een rugband voor stimulatie in de (onder)rug?

3. 

   Jan Willem de Bruijn

   13 januari 2015 11:28

   Het wetenschappelijke bewijs voor TENS in zijn algemeenheid is ‘inconclusive’ (Cochrane is DE autoriteit op het gebied van medische samenvattingen van effectonderzoek). Ofwel geen ja, geen nee. Er is meer onderzoek nodig. Lastig te onderzoeken hoor, omdat er veel appels en peren zijn in de vorm van verschillende aandoeningen die wellicht verschillend reageren op verschillende momenten bij verschillende mensen op verschillende TENS vormen etc., etc.,

   Pragmatisch gezien is de oplossing die Quelle biedt zeker; gewoon proberen. En volgens mijn therapeutische ervaring het liefst als onderdeel van een professioneel behandelplan. Met de geld terug regeling absoluut een positieve ontwikkeling!

   1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD003222. doi:
   10.1002/14651858.CD003222.pub2.

   Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain.

   Nnoaham KE(1), Kumbang J.

   Author information:
   (1)Public Health Medicine, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road
   Campus, Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LF. kcnnoaham@yahoo.com

   Update in
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD003222.

   Update of
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003222.

   BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a popular pain
   treatment modality but its effectiveness in chronic pain management is unknown.
   This review is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3,
   2001.
   OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of TENS in chronic pain.
   SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched.
   Reference lists from retrieved reports and reviews were examined. Date of the
   most recent search: April 2008.
   SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were eligible if they compared active TENS versus sham
   TENS controls; active TENS versus ‘no treatment’ controls; or active TENS versus
   active TENS controls (e.g. High Frequency TENS (HFTENS) versus Low Frequency TENS
   (LFTENS)). Studies of chronic pain for three months or more which included
   subjective outcome measures for pain intensity or relief were eligible for
   evaluation. No restrictions were made to language or sample size. Abstracts,
   letters, or unpublished studies, and studies of TENS in angina, headache,
   migraine, dysmenorrhoea and cancer-related pain were excluded.
   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and summarised on the following
   items: patients and details of pain condition, treatments, study duration,
   design, methods, subjective pain outcome measures, methodological quality,
   results for pain outcome measures and adverse effects, and conclusions by authors
   of the studies. Extracted data and methodological quality of studies were
   confirmed by the review authors.
   MAIN RESULTS: Of 124 studies identified from the searches, 99 did not fulfil
   pre-defined entry criteria. Twenty-five RCTs involving 1281 participants were
   evaluated. Included studies varied in design, analgesic outcomes, chronic pain
   conditions, TENS treatments and methodological quality. The reporting of methods
   and results for analgesic outcomes were inconsistent across studies and generally
   poor. Meta-analysis was not possible. Overall in 13 of 22 inactive control
   studies, there was a positive analgesic outcome in favour of active TENS
   treatments. For multiple dose treatment comparison studies, eight of fifteen were
   considered to be in favour of the active TENS treatments. Seven of the nine
   active controlled studies found no difference in analgesic efficacy between High
   Frequency (HF) TENS and Low Frequency (LF) TENS.
   AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, new relevant studies
   have not provided additional information to change the conclusions. Published
   literature on the subject lacks the methodological rigour or robust reporting
   needed to make confident assessments of the role of TENS in chronic pain
   management. Large multi-centre RCTs of TENS in chronic pain are still needed.

   PMID: 18646088 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Reacties zijn gesloten voor dit artikel.