QUESTIONS: In the active phase of the first stage of labour, does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) relieve pain or change its location? Does TENS delay the request for neuraxial analgesia during labour? Does TENS produce any harmful effects in the mother or the foetus? Are women in labour satisfied with the care provided? DESIGN: Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six low-risk, primigravida parturients with a gestational age > 37 weeks, cervical dilation of 4cm, and without the use of any medications from hospital admission until randomisation. INTERVENTION: The principal investigator applied TENS to the experimental group for 30minutes starting at the beginning of the active phase of labour. A second investigator assessed the outcomes in both the control and experimental groups. Both groups received routine perinatal care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain severity after the intervention period, which was assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included: pain location, duration of the active phase of labour, time to pharmacological labour analgesia, mode of birth, neonatal outcomes, and the participant's satisfaction with the care provided. RESULTS: After the intervention, a significant mean difference in change in pain of 15mm was observed favouring the experimental group (95% CI 2 to 27). The application of TENS did not alter the location or distribution of the pain. The mean time to pharmacological analgesia after the intervention was 5.0hours (95% CI 4.1 to 5.9) longer in the experimental group. The intervention did not significantly impact the other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Participants in both groups were satisfied with the care provided during labour. CONCLUSION:TENS produces a significant decrease in pain during labour and postpones the need for pharmacological analgesia for pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01600495.
RCT Entities:
QUESTIONS: In the active phase of the first stage of labour, does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) relieve pain or change its location? Does TENS delay the request for neuraxial analgesia during labour? Does TENS produce any harmful effects in the mother or the foetus? Are women in labour satisfied with the care provided? DESIGN: Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six low-risk, primigravida parturients with a gestational age > 37 weeks, cervical dilation of 4cm, and without the use of any medications from hospital admission until randomisation. INTERVENTION: The principal investigator applied TENS to the experimental group for 30minutes starting at the beginning of the active phase of labour. A second investigator assessed the outcomes in both the control and experimental groups. Both groups received routine perinatal care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain severity after the intervention period, which was assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included: pain location, duration of the active phase of labour, time to pharmacological labour analgesia, mode of birth, neonatal outcomes, and the participant's satisfaction with the care provided. RESULTS: After the intervention, a significant mean difference in change in pain of 15mm was observed favouring the experimental group (95% CI 2 to 27). The application of TENS did not alter the location or distribution of the pain. The mean time to pharmacological analgesia after the intervention was 5.0hours (95% CI 4.1 to 5.9) longer in the experimental group. The intervention did not significantly impact the other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Participants in both groups were satisfied with the care provided during labour. CONCLUSION: TENS produces a significant decrease in pain during labour and postpones the need for pharmacological analgesia for pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01600495.
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
Authors: Mohammad Eidy; Mohammad Reza Fazel; Monir Janzamini; Mostafa Haji Rezaei; Ali Reza Moravveji Journal: Iran Red Crescent Med J Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 0.611
Authors: Aníbal Báez-Suárez; Estela Martín-Castillo; Josué García-Andújar; José Ángel García-Hernández; María P Quintana-Montesdeoca; Juan Francisco Loro-Ferrer Journal: Trials Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Queenie Ho Yan Wong; Man Wa Lui; Sofie Shuk Fei Yung; Jennifer Ka Yee Ko; Raymond Hang Wun Li; Ernest Hung Yu Ng Journal: Trials Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Laura Garcia-Lausin; Mercedes Perez-Botella; Xavier Duran; Maria Felisa Mamblona-Vicente; Maria Jesus Gutierrez-Martin; Eugenia Gómez de Enterria-Cuesta; Ramon Escuriet Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gabriel Tavares Garcia; Robson Fonseca Ribeiro; Isabella Boechat Faria Santos; Fabiana de Campos Gomes; João Simão de Melo-Neto Journal: Med Acupunct Date: 2021-02-16