ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is one of the most frequently electrophysical agents employed in reducing the impact of FMS. This meta-analysis intended to determine the effectiveness of TENS on pain, disability, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with FMS. METHODS: According to PRISMA, we performed a meta-analysis (CRD42023456439), searching in PubMed Medline, PEDro, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, and Scopus, since inception up to October 2023. This review focused on controlled clinical trials evaluating the effect of TENS on pain, disability, and QoL in patients with FMS. The pooled effect was estimated using Cohen's standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI). RESULTS: Twelve studies, providing data from 944 patients, were included (PEDro score of 5.6 points). Meta-analyses showed that TENS interventions are effective in improving pain (SMD = -0.61; 95%CI -1 to -0.16); disability (SMD = -0.27; 95%CI -0.41 to -0.12); and physical dimension of QoL (SMD = 0.26; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.44). Additionally, when TENS is used as a unique therapy, it represents the best therapeutic option for improving pain, disability, and QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis, including the largest number of studies, showed that TENS intervention is an effective therapy to reduce pain and disability and increase QoL in FMS patients.
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) intervention is effective in reducing pain and disability; and increasing physical quality of life (QoL) in patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS).Compared to sham or no intervention, TENS is more effectiveness for improving pain, disability and QoL is major when it is applied as isolated therapy in patients with FMS.In comparison to therapeutic exercise, TENS did not show to be better in reducing pain and disability in patients with FMS, suggesting the importance of considering combined or alternative treatments.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this review was to (1) analyze the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (iVR) and augmented reality (AR) as teaching/learning resources (collectively called XR-technologies) for gaining anatomy knowledge compared to traditional approaches and (2) gauge students' perceptions of the usefulness of these technologies as learning tools. This meta-analysis, previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023423017), followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic bibliographical search, without time parameters, was conducted through four databases until June 2023. A meta-analytic approach investigated knowledge gains and XR's usefulness for learning. Pooled effect sizes were estimated using Cohen's standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A single-group proportional meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the percentage of students who considered XR devices useful for their learning. Twenty-seven experimental studies, reporting data from 2199 health sciences students, were included for analysis. XR-technologies yielded higher knowledge gains than traditional approaches (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.60), especially when used as supplemental/complementary learning resources (SMD = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.63). Specifically, knowledge performance using XR devices outperformed textbooks and atlases (SMD = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.54) and didactic lectures (SMD = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.42), especially among undergraduate students (SMD = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.62). XR devices were perceived to be more useful for learning than traditional approaches (SMD = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.04 to 1), and 80% of all students who used XR devices reported these devices as useful for learning anatomy. Learners using XR technologies demonstrated increased anatomy knowledge gains and considered these technologies useful for learning anatomy.
