Management of musculoskeletal neck pain through physiotherapeutic intervention: a pre-post design analysis

Silvian, S. Paul; Resmi, A.T.; Maiya, Arun G.; Ganesh, K.

doi:10.1504/ijbir.2013.054867

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 475 were excluded, and 55 were exposed to a thorough review of the full article. Twenty-two studies were excluded after the review of the full article because of a lack of randomization, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] using different study designs, 35,36 the lack of a control group, 37,38 different study populations (comparing two different treatments with one including ICF), 39,40 lack of the required outcome measures, [41][42][43] different languages, 44,45 inaccessibility of the full article, 46 and a lack of the desired intervention. 47 The final results included 33 trials in addition to two other trials 12,48 that were added after the manual search of the reference list (see Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/ PHM/B380).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

Hussein

Alshammari

Al-Barak

et al. 2021

Am J Phys Med Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Interferential current is one of the most common electrotherapeutic modalities used in the treatment of painful conditions. Patients seeking medical help to reduce their musculoskeletal pain can be treated using interferential current. Objective: The current review aimed to analyze the recently available information regarding the efficacy of interferential current in alleviating the pain of musculoskeletal origin. Methods: This study used Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOas as data sources. The initial selection of the studies, thorough assessment of the full articles, and extraction of the necessary study characteristics were carried out by two independent reviewers. Another two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each included trial against 39 criteria. These criteria were integrated from several popular scales. Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Pain Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest. Results: This review included 35 trials of variable methodological quality from which 19 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. In general, interferential current alone versus placebo demonstrated a significant pain-relieving effect. On the other hand, interferential current showed no significant difference when added to standard treatment compared with placebo plus standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Similarly, interferential current showed no significant difference when compared with other single interventions (laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cryotherapy). Conclusions: Interferential current alone is better than placebo at discharge. However, the low number of studies raises suspicions about this conclusion. Interferential current alone or added to other interventions is not more effective than comparative treatments in relieving musculoskeletal pain.

show abstract