Reacties voor: Quell bestrijdt chronische pijn met iPhone-accessoire

Quell gaat een accessoire uitbrengen, die chronische pijn in knieën en kuiten bestrijdt met een zwak elektrisch stroompje en een iPhone-app.
Lees het complete artikel → Quell bestrijdt chronische pijn met iPhone-accessoire
Gonny van der Zwaag | iCulture.nl -

Taalfout gezien of andere suggestie hoe we dit artikel kunnen verbeteren? Laat het ons weten!

Reacties: 4 reacties

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

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

  3. 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.