Percutaneous electrolysis consists of the application of a galvanic electrical current throughout an acupuncture needle. It has been previously hypothesized that needling procedures’ neurophysiological effects may be related to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). This protocol study describes the design of a double-blind (participant, assessor) randomized controlled trial with the aim to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis is able to enhance EPM and whether the effect is different between two applications depending on the dosage of the galvanic electrical current. Seventy-two asymptomatic subjects not reporting the presence of pain symptoms the previous 6 months before the study, aged 18–40 years, are randomized into one of four groups: a control group who does not receive any intervention, a needling group who receives a needling intervention without electrical current, a low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (0.3 mA × 90 s), and a high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (three bouts of 3 mA × 3 s). Needling intervention consists of ultrasound-guided insertion of the needle on the common extensor tendon of the lateral epicondyle. The primary outcome is conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and secondary outcomes include widespread pressure pain sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds (PPT) over the lateral epicondyle, the cervical spine, and the tibialis anterior muscle) and temporal summation (TS). We expected that percutaneous electrolysis would have a greater influence on CPM than an isolated needling procedure and no intervention. In addition, we also postulated that there might be differences in outcome measures depending on the intensity of the electrical current during the percutaneous electrolysis application. This study makes a new contribution to the field of neurophysiological effects of percutaneous electrolysis and needling interventions.
BACKGROUND Physical exercise seems to have a beneficial effect on telomere length, however, the effects according to the type of exercise have not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVE a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine de effect of physical exercise in telomere length in heathy population. METHODS Data source: PUBMED, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science and SCOPUS from inception to September 2022 were searched to identify documents. Study selection: Publications investigating the effect of physical exercise in telomere length. Data extraction: data were extracted into predesigned data extraction and tables. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk Of Bias Tool (Rob 2.0 and Robins II). 9 articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS Random-effects model analysis were used to quantify the difference in telomere length between exercise group and sham. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the current systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that high-intensity interval training seems to have a positive effect on telomere length compared to other types of exercise such as resistance training or aerobic exercise in a healthy population
ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous electrolysis (PE) alone or as an adjunct to other interventions on pain intensity generated by musculoskeletal disorders, depending on the intensity of the technique.Data sourcesPUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Health Medical Collection, and CINALH from inception to September 2022 were searched to identify documents.Study selectionPublications investigating the effect of ultrasound-guided PE in musculoskeletal pain.Data extractionData were extracted into predesigned data extraction and tables. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (Rob 2.0). Thirteen articles met inclusion criteria.Data analysisRandom-effects meta-analysis models were used to quantify the difference in pain between the PE and control groups.Data synthesisA significant reduction in pain was found in favor of low- (−1.89; 95% CI: −2.69; −1.10; p < 0.001) and high-intensity PE (−0.74; 95% CI: −1.36; −0.11; p: 0.02) compared to control group. Low-intensity PE showed significant reduction in pain in the short (−1.73; 95% CI: −3.13; −0.34; p < 0.02) and long term (−2.10; 95% CI: −2.93; −1.28; p = 0.005), with large effect sizes compared to control group. High-intensity PE only showed significant lower pain than control group in the long term (−0.92; 95% CI: −1.78; −0.07; p < 0.03), with a small effect size, but not in the short term.ConclusionWe found small evidence suggesting that low-intensity PE could be more effective for musculoskeletal pain reduction than high-intensity PE. Nevertheless, scientific evidence on this subject is still scarce and studies comparing the two modalities are warranted.Systematic review registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022366935.
The purpose of this double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis (PE) is able to activate endogenous pain modulation and whether its effects are dependent on the dosage of the galvanic current. A total of 54 asymptomatic subjects aged 18–40 years were randomized into three groups, receiving a single ultrasound-guided PE intervention that consisted of a needle insertion on the lateral epicondyle tendon: sham (without electrical current), low-intensity (0.3 mA, 90 s), and high-intensity (three pulses of 3 mA, 3 s). Widespread pressure pain thresholds (PPT), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation (TS) were assessed in the elbow, shoulder, and leg before and immediately after the intervention. Both high and low intensity PE protocols produced an increase in PPT in the shoulder compared to sham (p = 0.031 and p = 0.027). The sham group presented a significant decrease in the CPM (p = 0.006), and this finding was prevented in PE groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.025). In addition, high-intensity PE decreased TS respect to sham in the elbow (p = 0.047) and both PE groups reduced TS in the leg (p = 0.036 and p = 0.020) without significant differences compared to sham (p = 0.512). Consequently, a single PE intervention modulated pain processing in local and widespread areas, implying an endogenous pain modulation. The pain processing effect was independent of the dosage administrated.
BACKGROUND Physical exercise seems to have a beneficial effect on telomere length, however, the effects according to the type of exercise have not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVE A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine de effect of physical exercise in telomere length in heathy population. METHODS Data source: PUBMED, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science and SCOPUS from inception to September 2022 were searched to identify documents. Study selection: Publications investigating the effect of physical exercise in telomere length. Data extraction: data were extracted into predesigned data extraction and tables. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk Of Bias Tool (Rob 2.0 and Robins II). 9 articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS Random-effects model analysis were used to quantify the difference in telomere length between exercise group and sham. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the current systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that high-intensity interval training seems to have a positive effect on telomere length compared to other types of exercise such as resistance training or aerobic exercise in a healthy population CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO registration no: CRD42022364518
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.