Literature DB >> 19055333

Effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation on symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, sham-controlled pilot study.

Terry Kit Selfe1, Cheryl Bourguignon, Ann Gill Taylor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation used as an adjunct to usual care, on pain and other symptoms in adults with osteoarthritis of the knee.
DESIGN: Randomized, sham-controlled trial.
SETTING: A university in the southern United States.
SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven (37) adults with knee osteoarthritis (based on American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria).
INTERVENTIONS: Seventeen (17) noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (active or sham) sessions over 8 weeks with a week 12 follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven-point numeric rating scale for weekly pain; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), patient global assessment, and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) completed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12.
RESULTS: For the main outcome, pain, the differences between the groups over time did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.05). However, a clinically important reduction in pain (defined as a 2-point or 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric rating scale) was maintained at week 12 by the active noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group (2.17 points, 34.55% reduction) but not the sham group (1.63, 26.04% reduction). Pain improved over time in participants regardless of group membership (numeric rating scale average pain, p = 0.002; numeric rating scale worst pain, p < 0.001; and WOMAC pain, p < 0.001), as did WOMAC function, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC total score (all p < 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups over time for the SF-36 Vitality scale, F (3, 105) = 3.54, p = 0.017. In addition, the active device group improved on the patient global assessment from baseline to week 8 compared to the sham device group, F (1, 35) = 4.025, p = 0.053.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, clinically important reductions in knee pain were maintained at week 12 in the active, but not the sham, noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group. Further study of this noninvasive therapy is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19055333      PMCID: PMC2810549          DOI: 10.1089/acm.2008.0305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Altern Complement Med        ISSN: 1075-5535            Impact factor:   2.579


  37 in total

1.  Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures.

Authors:  M P Jensen; J A Turner; J M Romano; L D Fisher
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 2.  What is a "clinically meaningful" reduction in pain?

Authors:  Michael C Rowbotham
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.961

3.  Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Emil Schemitsch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  A controlled double blind study comparing the effects of strong Burst Mode TENS and High Rate TENS on painful osteoarthritic knees.

Authors:  K Grimmer
Journal:  Aust J Physiother       Date:  1992

5.  Acupuncture in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised trial.

Authors:  C Witt; B Brinkhaus; S Jena; K Linde; A Streng; S Wagenpfeil; J Hummelsberger; H U Walther; D Melchart; S N Willich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jul 9-15       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Paul Karoly; Sanford Braver
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: relative validity of scales in relation to clinical measures of arthritis severity.

Authors:  M Kosinski; S D Keller; J E Ware; H T Hatoum; S X Kong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 8.  Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  M Osiri; V Welch; L Brosseau; B Shea; J McGowan; P Tugwell; G Wells
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

9.  The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study.

Authors:  D T Felson; A Naimark; J Anderson; L Kazis; W Castelli; R F Meenan
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1987-08

10.  The evaluation of electrodermal properties in the identification of myofascial trigger points.

Authors:  Sarah P Shultz; Jeffrey B Driban; Charles B Swanik
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research.

Authors:  Mark I Johnson; Carole A Paley; Priscilla G Wittkopf; Matthew R Mulvey; Gareth Jones
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.948

Review 2.  Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Authors:  Helen P French; J Haxby Abbott; Rose Galvin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-10-17

3.  Effects of a Single Application of ScenarTM, a Low-Frequency Modulated Electric Current Therapy, for Pain Relief in Patients with Low Back and Neck Pain: A Randomized Single Blinded Trial.

Authors:  Mireille Michel-Cherqui; Avit Guirimand; Barbara Szekely; Titouan Kennel; Marc Fischler; Morgan Le Guen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 4.241

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.