Protocol full text hidden due to copyright restrictions
Open the protocol to access the free full text link
>
Procedures
>
Therapeutic or Preventive Procedure
>
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-invasive therpeutic technique that uses low-voltage electric current to relieve pain.
It is commonly used to manage chronic pain conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and neuropathic pain.
TENS works by stimulating the sensory nerves under the skin, which blocks the transmission of pain signals to the brain.
It may also stimulate the release of endorphins, the body's natural pain-relieving chemicals.
TENS is considered a safe and effective treatment option, with few side effects when used as directed.
Researchers continue to study the optimal parameters, such as frequency, intensity, and duration, to enhance the efficacy of TENS for different pain conditions.
It is commonly used to manage chronic pain conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and neuropathic pain.
TENS works by stimulating the sensory nerves under the skin, which blocks the transmission of pain signals to the brain.
It may also stimulate the release of endorphins, the body's natural pain-relieving chemicals.
TENS is considered a safe and effective treatment option, with few side effects when used as directed.
Researchers continue to study the optimal parameters, such as frequency, intensity, and duration, to enhance the efficacy of TENS for different pain conditions.
Most cited protocols related to «Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation»
External Ear
fMRI
Head
Human Body
Lanugo
Medical Devices
Neck
Pulses
Radionuclide Imaging
Stimulations, Electric
Titanium
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Wheeled Stretchers
The protocol included three sessions: baseline, manipulation and final (Fig 1B ). The baseline and final sessions were identical in both groups and consisted in the execution of the motor task described above. These two sessions allowed comparing subjects’ performance before and after the nocebo manipulation.
Nocebo effects were obtained by applying an inert treatment (10 Hz transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, TENS) for 5 minutes over the region of the FDI belly. The intensity of TENS was adjusted until the subject reported a slight sensation without muscle contraction. Subjects were also asked to report whether TENS was painful or uncomfortable. None of the participants reported these sensations. Participants of the experimental group were told that TENS could reduce the recruitment of muscle fibers, thereby decreasing force production. Because of the cutaneous sensation perceived by the subjects over the region of the hand muscle involved in the task, TENS can be expected to manipulate the subject’s belief of bad motor performance. In order to reinforce the subjects’ belief about the effects of TENS, the experimental group underwent a conditioning phase. A pre-determined, surreptitious reduction of the cursor’s excursion range was introduced stepwise. More precisely, after TENS, the motor task was executed again, but this time unbeknown to the subjects an attenuation coefficient was introduced and the excursion of the cursor was gradually decreased in steps of 0.0029 from trial 1 to trial 35 and remained stable until the end of the session (from trial 36 to trial 50). Consequently, by applying the same amount of force as in the baseline, the participants of the experimental group could see the cursor achieving lower lines of the target zone than before, and therefore believed to be weaker because of TENS.
Before starting the final session, TENS was applied again together with verbal suggestion of worse motor performance. Subjects then repeated the motor task (50 trials), but this time without any manipulation, that is without the reduction of the cursor’s excursion range.
The same motor task was performed by the subjects of the control group, who also underwent the TENS application as described above, but with different verbal information. In particular, these subjects were clearly told that they have been assigned to a control group in which TENS was completely inert in affecting force. They executed the motor task three times, like the experimental group, but without reduction of the cursor’s displacements in the manipulation session.
For each subject, the whole experiment took about 1.5 hours to be completed. Participants were tested at different times during the day, starting from 9.00am to 5.00pm. In the experimental group, 9 subjects were tested in the morning (9.00am-12.00am) and 8 subjects were tested in the afternoon (1.00pm-5.00pm). In the control group, 9 subjects were tested in the morning (9.00am-12.00am) and 6 subjects were tested in the afternoon (1.00pm-5.00pm). By analyzing the distribution of the subjects tested in the morning and in the afternoon, we found no differences between the two groups (Chi-square test, χ2 = 0.161, df = 1, p = 0.688).
Nocebo effects were obtained by applying an inert treatment (10 Hz transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, TENS) for 5 minutes over the region of the FDI belly. The intensity of TENS was adjusted until the subject reported a slight sensation without muscle contraction. Subjects were also asked to report whether TENS was painful or uncomfortable. None of the participants reported these sensations. Participants of the experimental group were told that TENS could reduce the recruitment of muscle fibers, thereby decreasing force production. Because of the cutaneous sensation perceived by the subjects over the region of the hand muscle involved in the task, TENS can be expected to manipulate the subject’s belief of bad motor performance. In order to reinforce the subjects’ belief about the effects of TENS, the experimental group underwent a conditioning phase. A pre-determined, surreptitious reduction of the cursor’s excursion range was introduced stepwise. More precisely, after TENS, the motor task was executed again, but this time unbeknown to the subjects an attenuation coefficient was introduced and the excursion of the cursor was gradually decreased in steps of 0.0029 from trial 1 to trial 35 and remained stable until the end of the session (from trial 36 to trial 50). Consequently, by applying the same amount of force as in the baseline, the participants of the experimental group could see the cursor achieving lower lines of the target zone than before, and therefore believed to be weaker because of TENS.
Before starting the final session, TENS was applied again together with verbal suggestion of worse motor performance. Subjects then repeated the motor task (50 trials), but this time without any manipulation, that is without the reduction of the cursor’s excursion range.
The same motor task was performed by the subjects of the control group, who also underwent the TENS application as described above, but with different verbal information. In particular, these subjects were clearly told that they have been assigned to a control group in which TENS was completely inert in affecting force. They executed the motor task three times, like the experimental group, but without reduction of the cursor’s displacements in the manipulation session.
For each subject, the whole experiment took about 1.5 hours to be completed. Participants were tested at different times during the day, starting from 9.00am to 5.00pm. In the experimental group, 9 subjects were tested in the morning (9.00am-12.00am) and 8 subjects were tested in the afternoon (1.00pm-5.00pm). In the control group, 9 subjects were tested in the morning (9.00am-12.00am) and 6 subjects were tested in the afternoon (1.00pm-5.00pm). By analyzing the distribution of the subjects tested in the morning and in the afternoon, we found no differences between the two groups (Chi-square test, χ2 = 0.161, df = 1, p = 0.688).
Full text: Click here
Displacement, Psychology
Motion Sickness
Muscle Contraction
Muscle Tissue
Pain
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
All the time points recorded in this study are in accordance with the taVNS occurrences, i.e. the first taVNS session occurs on day 1, the seventh day recorded as W1, and so on. For taVNS, under 2% isoflurane inhalation anesthesia, two oppositely charged magnetic electrodes (+/-) were placed over the auricular concha region, inside and outside respectively, of each ear. Saline was applied between an electrode and the skin to improve electric conductivity. A session of 30min transcutaneous electrical stimulation at frequencies of 2/15 Hz (2 and 15 Hz, switched every second) and an intensity of 2mA was applied via an electrical stimulator (HANS-100, Nanjing, China). The procedures were given in the afternoon after a blood glucose concentration test and a blood sample collection at designated time points. Auricular margin was used as the sham acupoint. The electroacupuncture condition at auricular margin was same as that at taVNS except the stimulate location (Fig 1 ).
Full text: Click here
Acupuncture Points
Anesthesia, Inhalation
Electric Conductivity
Electricity
Electroacupuncture
External Ear
Glucose
Hematologic Tests
Isoflurane
Saline Solution
Skin
Specimen Collections, Blood
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
This review was performed in accordance with the PROSPECT methodology [6 (link), 7 , 8 (link)]. Specific to this study, the Embase; MEDLINE; PubMed; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for randomised controlled trials published between 01 January 2010 and 01 January 2021. We focused on this time period because VATS was uncommonly performed for lung resection in the preceding years, with thoracotomy being the standard of care at that time.
Search terms used were related to pain and interventions for VATS. These comprised ‘video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery’ and/or ‘thoracoscopic’ and/or ‘video‐assisted wedge’ and/or ‘video‐assisted lobectomy’ and/or ‘pain’ and/or ‘analgesia’ and/or ‘anaesthesia’ and/or ‘anesthetic’ and/or ‘visual analogue’ and/or ‘vrs’ and/or ‘mcgill’ and/or ‘epidural’ and/or ‘neuraxial’ and/or ‘spinal’ and/or ‘paravertebral block’ and/or ‘erector spinae’ and/or ‘serratus block’ and/or ‘intercostal block’ and/or ‘suprascapular block’ and/or ‘intrathecal’ and/or ‘caudal’ and/or ‘intrapleural’ and/or ‘narcotic’ and/or ‘continuous intercostal nerve block’ and/or ‘combined epidural‐general’ and/or ‘combined regional‐general’ and/or ‘NMDA’ and/or ‘peripheral block’ and/or ‘infiltration’ or ‘instillation’ or ‘NSAID’ or ‘COX‐2’ or ‘paracetamol’ or ‘acetaminophen’ or ‘gabapentin’ or ‘pregabalin’ or ‘clonidine’ or ‘opioid’ or ‘ketamine’ or ‘corticosteroid’ or ‘dexamethasone’ or ‘magnesium’ or ‘lidocaine’ or ‘patient‐controlled analgesia’ or ‘PCA’ or ‘PEC block’ or ‘transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation’ and/or ‘TENS’.
We included randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English assessing pain management for patients undergoing VATS for lung resection. We excluded studies with patients who underwent a thoracotomy and studies in which more than 75% of the included patients underwent surgery for pneumothorax, as the peri‐operative pain profiles varied from VATS for lung resection. These studies were removed from analysis because pleural abrasion or resection prevents the use of some regional anaesthetic techniques such as paravertebral block. Pain control after pneumothorax surgery is an issue that is somewhat different from pain control after lung resection, and the aim of PROSPECT review being to provide clinicians appropriate recommendations applying specifically for dedicated surgical procedures.
Quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis adhered to the PROSPECT methodology [7 ]. The studies were required to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numeral rating scale (NRS). We defined a change of more than 10 on a scale of 0–100 as clinically relevant. We used the PROSPECT methodology previously described for the assessment of the study protocols and results [9 (link)]. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and if two or more studies achieved a significant difference, we considered there to be enough data to recommend the treatment or the technique.
Recommendations were made according to the PROSPECT methodology [9 (link)]. Criteria for the assessment of the quality of eligible studies included allocation concealment (A, adequate; B, unclear; C, inadequate; D, not used), numerical (1–5) quality scoring system used by Jadad et al. to assess randomisation, blinding and flow of patients; follow‐up of more or less than 80% of the included patients; and whether the study met the requirements of the CONSORT 2010 statement. The suggested recommendations were sent to the PROSPECT Working Group for review and comments through a modified Delphi approach as previously described [9 (link)]. Once consensus was achieved, the lead authors drafted the final document, which was ultimately approved by the Working Group.
Search terms used were related to pain and interventions for VATS. These comprised ‘video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery’ and/or ‘thoracoscopic’ and/or ‘video‐assisted wedge’ and/or ‘video‐assisted lobectomy’ and/or ‘pain’ and/or ‘analgesia’ and/or ‘anaesthesia’ and/or ‘anesthetic’ and/or ‘visual analogue’ and/or ‘vrs’ and/or ‘mcgill’ and/or ‘epidural’ and/or ‘neuraxial’ and/or ‘spinal’ and/or ‘paravertebral block’ and/or ‘erector spinae’ and/or ‘serratus block’ and/or ‘intercostal block’ and/or ‘suprascapular block’ and/or ‘intrathecal’ and/or ‘caudal’ and/or ‘intrapleural’ and/or ‘narcotic’ and/or ‘continuous intercostal nerve block’ and/or ‘combined epidural‐general’ and/or ‘combined regional‐general’ and/or ‘NMDA’ and/or ‘peripheral block’ and/or ‘infiltration’ or ‘instillation’ or ‘NSAID’ or ‘COX‐2’ or ‘paracetamol’ or ‘acetaminophen’ or ‘gabapentin’ or ‘pregabalin’ or ‘clonidine’ or ‘opioid’ or ‘ketamine’ or ‘corticosteroid’ or ‘dexamethasone’ or ‘magnesium’ or ‘lidocaine’ or ‘patient‐controlled analgesia’ or ‘PCA’ or ‘PEC block’ or ‘transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation’ and/or ‘TENS’.
We included randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English assessing pain management for patients undergoing VATS for lung resection. We excluded studies with patients who underwent a thoracotomy and studies in which more than 75% of the included patients underwent surgery for pneumothorax, as the peri‐operative pain profiles varied from VATS for lung resection. These studies were removed from analysis because pleural abrasion or resection prevents the use of some regional anaesthetic techniques such as paravertebral block. Pain control after pneumothorax surgery is an issue that is somewhat different from pain control after lung resection, and the aim of PROSPECT review being to provide clinicians appropriate recommendations applying specifically for dedicated surgical procedures.
Quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis adhered to the PROSPECT methodology [7 ]. The studies were required to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numeral rating scale (NRS). We defined a change of more than 10 on a scale of 0–100 as clinically relevant. We used the PROSPECT methodology previously described for the assessment of the study protocols and results [9 (link)]. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and if two or more studies achieved a significant difference, we considered there to be enough data to recommend the treatment or the technique.
Recommendations were made according to the PROSPECT methodology [9 (link)]. Criteria for the assessment of the quality of eligible studies included allocation concealment (A, adequate; B, unclear; C, inadequate; D, not used), numerical (1–5) quality scoring system used by Jadad et al. to assess randomisation, blinding and flow of patients; follow‐up of more or less than 80% of the included patients; and whether the study met the requirements of the CONSORT 2010 statement. The suggested recommendations were sent to the PROSPECT Working Group for review and comments through a modified Delphi approach as previously described [9 (link)]. Once consensus was achieved, the lead authors drafted the final document, which was ultimately approved by the Working Group.
Acetaminophen
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Anesthesia
Anesthetics
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
Central Nervous System
Clonidine
Dexamethasone
Gabapentin
Ketamine
Lidocaine
Local Anesthesia
Lung
Magnesium
Management, Pain
N-Methylaspartate
Narcotics
Nerve Block
Operative Surgical Procedures
Opioids
Pain
Patient-Controlled Analgesia
Patients
Pleura
Pneumothorax
Pregabalin
PTGS2 protein, human
Severity, Pain
Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted
Thoracoscopes
Thoracotomy
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Visual Analog Pain Scale
Forelimb grip strength was measured on a weekly basis, by means of a grip strength meter (Columbus Instruments, USA), according to a standard protocol [33 (link),34 (link),35 (link),36 (link),37 (link),40 (link),41 (link)]. Maximal force, absolute (expressed in kg force, KGF) and normalized to body mass (in KGF/kg), obtained from five repeated measurements per mouse, was used for data analysis [33 (link),34 (link),35 (link),36 (link),37 (link),40 (link),41 (link)]. At the beginning (T0) and the end (T4) of the training phase, all mice underwent an acute exercise resistance test on a treadmill at incremental speed to assess in vivo fatigability. Each mouse was let run until exhaustion, i.e., inability to re-start the running after a 20 s pause, and the total distance run (in m) up to that time was calculated and used for data analysis [33 (link),34 (link),35 (link),36 (link),37 (link),40 (link),41 (link)].
In vivo isometric torque produced by hind limb plantar flexor muscles (gastrocnemius, soleus, and other minor muscles) was measured in anesthetized mice at T4 by using the 1300A 3-in-1 Whole Animal Muscle Test System (Aurora Scientific Inc., Aurora, ON, Canada). Inhalation anesthesia (≈3% isoflurane in an induction chamber, then ≈2% isoflurane via nose cone for maintenance, both with 1.5 L/min O2) was delivered by using an anesthetic vaporizer (Harvard Apparatus Fluovac and Datex Ohmeda Isotec 4, Holliston, MA, USA) with an oxygen concentrator (LFY-1-5A, Longfei Group Co., Wenzhou, China; distributed by 2Biological Instruments, Besozzo, VA, Italy). The animal was positioned on a thermostatically controlled plate (36 °C); the right foot was placed on a pedal connected to a servomotor, forming a 90° angle with the secured hind limb. Contractions were elicited with the best stimulus intensity at increasing frequencies (200 ms trains at 1, 10, 30, 50, 80, 100, 120, 150, 180, and 200 Hz), via percutaneous electrical stimulation of the sciatic nerve through a pair of needle electrodes connected to a stimulator. Torque values were calculated with the Dynamic Muscle Analysis software (ASI DMAv5.201) and normalized to mouse body mass (N*mm3/kg). Normalized values were used to construct torque–frequency curves [36 (link),41 (link)].
In vivo isometric torque produced by hind limb plantar flexor muscles (gastrocnemius, soleus, and other minor muscles) was measured in anesthetized mice at T4 by using the 1300A 3-in-1 Whole Animal Muscle Test System (Aurora Scientific Inc., Aurora, ON, Canada). Inhalation anesthesia (≈3% isoflurane in an induction chamber, then ≈2% isoflurane via nose cone for maintenance, both with 1.5 L/min O2) was delivered by using an anesthetic vaporizer (Harvard Apparatus Fluovac and Datex Ohmeda Isotec 4, Holliston, MA, USA) with an oxygen concentrator (LFY-1-5A, Longfei Group Co., Wenzhou, China; distributed by 2Biological Instruments, Besozzo, VA, Italy). The animal was positioned on a thermostatically controlled plate (36 °C); the right foot was placed on a pedal connected to a servomotor, forming a 90° angle with the secured hind limb. Contractions were elicited with the best stimulus intensity at increasing frequencies (200 ms trains at 1, 10, 30, 50, 80, 100, 120, 150, 180, and 200 Hz), via percutaneous electrical stimulation of the sciatic nerve through a pair of needle electrodes connected to a stimulator. Torque values were calculated with the Dynamic Muscle Analysis software (ASI DMAv5.201) and normalized to mouse body mass (N*mm3/kg). Normalized values were used to construct torque–frequency curves [36 (link),41 (link)].
Full text: Click here
Anesthesia, Inhalation
Anesthetics
Animals
Conditioning, Psychology
Exercise Tests
Foot
Hindlimb
Human Body
Isoflurane
Mice, House
Muscle, Gastrocnemius
Muscle Tissue
Needles
Nose
Oxygen
Retinal Cone
Soleus Muscle
Torque
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Upper Extremity
Vaporizers
Most recents protocols related to «Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation»
HBR was elicited by transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the right median nerve at the wrist using a bipolar surface electrode (constant current square-wave pulses; DS7A, Digitimer). First, for each participant, we calibrated the stimulus intensity able to elicit a clear blink reflex by increasing the stimulus intensity until a clear and stable HBR was observed in at least five consecutive trials or the participant refused to increase the intensity further (mean stimulus intensities, 23.35 ± 17.48 mA; range, 0.7–75 mA). Stimulus duration was 200 μs and, to minimize habituation, the inter-stimulus interval was ~ 30 s, as described in the literature6 (link)–9 (link),16 (link),51 (link). EMG activity was recorded from the right orbicularis oculi muscle (ipsilateral to the stimulated hand), using a pair of bipolar surface electrodes, with the active electrode placed over the mid lower eyelid and the reference electrode placed laterally to the outer canthus. Signals were amplified and digitized at 10 kHz (BIOPAC system, MP150), and stored for off-line analysis.
Full text: Click here
Blink Reflexes
Eyelids
Oculomotor Muscles
Pulses
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Wrist
Participants were familiarized with a numeric interference (NI) task (see 12 (link), 13 (link), 24 (link)–27 (link)) and underwent a training session before testing began. The NI task required the participants to view a computer screen that displayed 3 separate boxes, each of which contained a different number of digits that ranged in value from 1 to 9. Within each box there were identical numbers but there were different numbers across the boxes. Each participant was instructed to use a numerical keyboard to indicate as quickly and as accurately as possible, the highest number of digits across the boxes. The cognitive-demanding aspect of the task was that participants had to report the highest number of digits (non-dominant information) rather than the highest number value (dominant information) (12 (link), 13 (link), 24 (link)–27 (link)). The study included 6 blocks with 24 trials each (trial length = 2.5 s, inter-block interval =60 s), and blocks alternated between a no-pain condition and a pain condition during which experimental pain was applied concurrently during the task (12 (link), 13 (link)). A computer-controlled transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) device (300-PV Empi Inc.) was used to deliver stimuli to the left median nerve and was calibrated prior to testing to elicit pain intensity of approximately 40–60/100 (0 = no pain, 100 = most intense pain imaginable) for each participant. The NI task was run on EPrime v1.1 (Psychological Software tools). See the Supplementary Materials for more details about the TENS stimulus calibration procedure. The first two blocks of the NI task (one no-pain block and one pain block) were removed to avoid learning effects for each participant.
Full text: Click here
Cardiac Arrest
Cognition
Fingers
Medical Devices
Nerves, Median
Pain
Pain Disorder
Severity, Pain
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Mechanical detection and pain thresholds and electrical detection and pain thresholds were obtained at baseline and after 3 months of olfactory training. Testing areas were the volar lower arms. The mechanical detection threshold (MDT) was measured with a standardized set of modified von Frey hairs that exert forces between 0.25 and 512 mN (21 (link)). Mechanical pain threshold (MPT) was measured using the PinPrick stimulators, which exert forces between 8 and 512 mN (21 (link)). For both tests, the geometric mean of five series of ascending and descending stimulus intensities was selected as the threshold value. For the electrical detection and pain thresholds, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) equipment was used. TENS is used in a therapeutic setting, so it is a well-tolerated system to measure electric thresholds in children and adolescents (22 (link)). The electrical detection threshold was measured by a single stimulus of increasing electric current until participants detected the stimulus. After that, a stepwise increase in mA led to the level of perception of pain.
Olfactory testing was performed before and after the 3-month training period using the “Sniffin' Sticks” test kit (23 (link)), which involves tests for odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. The threshold test comprises 16 triplets of Sniffin' Stick pens, where one of the three pens is impregnated with N-butanol or phenylethylalcohol (BUT/PEA) diluted in a solvent according to a decreasing concentration. The children should specify the odor pen among the set of three pens presented. The second subtest assessed the ability of the patients to discriminate different odors. In this test, patients were also exposed to 16 triplets of odors, including two identical odors and one different odor. The task was to identify the odor, which differed from the other two pens. Eyes must be closed or blindfolded for both threshold and discrimination tests. The identification subtest consists of 16 common odors. The study participants were asked to choose from a list of four written proposals (24 (link)). The sum of the scores of the three subtests resulted in the Threshold, Discrimination, Identification (TDI) score, with a maximum of 48 points.
Olfactory testing was performed before and after the 3-month training period using the “Sniffin' Sticks” test kit (23 (link)), which involves tests for odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. The threshold test comprises 16 triplets of Sniffin' Stick pens, where one of the three pens is impregnated with N-butanol or phenylethylalcohol (BUT/PEA) diluted in a solvent according to a decreasing concentration. The children should specify the odor pen among the set of three pens presented. The second subtest assessed the ability of the patients to discriminate different odors. In this test, patients were also exposed to 16 triplets of odors, including two identical odors and one different odor. The task was to identify the odor, which differed from the other two pens. Eyes must be closed or blindfolded for both threshold and discrimination tests. The identification subtest consists of 16 common odors. The study participants were asked to choose from a list of four written proposals (24 (link)). The sum of the scores of the three subtests resulted in the Threshold, Discrimination, Identification (TDI) score, with a maximum of 48 points.
Full text: Click here
Adolescent
Arm, Upper
Butyl Alcohol
Child
Discrimination, Psychology
Electricity
Eye
Hair
Menstruation Disturbances
Odors
Pain Perception
Patients
Phenylethyl Alcohol
Sense of Smell
Solvents
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Triplets
Recording of AEs, SAEs, serious unexpected adverse events (SUAEs) or unanticipated problems (UPs) occurs at all visits as reported by a participant or observed by study personnel and reported to the Pis. All events are recorded, while SAEs, SUAEs, and UPs are reported immediately to the IRB and DSMB. AEs are recorded and submitted to the study sponsor and to the reviewing IRB at the next annual review date. In case of occurrence or report of a SUAE, the Pis will complete an SUAE form and submit to the study sponsor and to the reviewing IRB as soon as possible, but within 5 working days after the PI first learns of the incident.
For incidents or events that meet the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) criteria for UPs, a UP report form will be completed and submitted to the IRB and to the NIH. The UP report will include the following information: Protocol identifying information: protocol title and number, Pis name, and the IRB project number; A detailed description of the event, incident, experience, or outcome; An explanation of the basis for determining that the event, incident, experience, or outcome represents an UP and whether it is probably, possibly, or unlikely to be study-related; A description of any changes to the protocol or other corrective actions that have been taken or are proposed in response to the UP. To satisfy the requirement for prompt reporting, UPs will be reported using the following timeline: UPs that are SAEs will be reported to the IRB and to the NIH within two days of the investigator becoming aware of the event. Any other UP will be reported to the IRB and to the study sponsor within ten days of the investigator becoming aware of the problem. All UPs will be reported to appropriate institutional officials (as required by an institution’s written reporting procedures), the supporting agency head (or designee), and OHRP within 10 days of the IR’s receipt of the report of the problem from the investigator. Both Pi’s will be responsible for ensuring participants’ safety on a daily basis and for reporting all adverse events AE and UP to the IRB.
Based on our extensive clinical and research experience with SCI, transspinal stimulation, and locomotor training, we do not anticipate any SUAEs to occur. No safety issues have been reported following transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation or following transcutaneous spinal cord (or transspinal) stimulation. In 38 out of 89 persons with SCI who received locomotor training with the Lokomat, adverse events included mild skin erythema at the sites of the cuffs, and muscle pain while open skin lesions (n = 2), joint pain (n = 2) or tendinopathy (n = 1) were also reported [96 (link)]. The events are predictable and are indicated as potential risks in the Informed Consent Form.
For incidents or events that meet the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) criteria for UPs, a UP report form will be completed and submitted to the IRB and to the NIH. The UP report will include the following information: Protocol identifying information: protocol title and number, Pis name, and the IRB project number; A detailed description of the event, incident, experience, or outcome; An explanation of the basis for determining that the event, incident, experience, or outcome represents an UP and whether it is probably, possibly, or unlikely to be study-related; A description of any changes to the protocol or other corrective actions that have been taken or are proposed in response to the UP. To satisfy the requirement for prompt reporting, UPs will be reported using the following timeline: UPs that are SAEs will be reported to the IRB and to the NIH within two days of the investigator becoming aware of the event. Any other UP will be reported to the IRB and to the study sponsor within ten days of the investigator becoming aware of the problem. All UPs will be reported to appropriate institutional officials (as required by an institution’s written reporting procedures), the supporting agency head (or designee), and OHRP within 10 days of the IR’s receipt of the report of the problem from the investigator. Both Pi’s will be responsible for ensuring participants’ safety on a daily basis and for reporting all adverse events AE and UP to the IRB.
Based on our extensive clinical and research experience with SCI, transspinal stimulation, and locomotor training, we do not anticipate any SUAEs to occur. No safety issues have been reported following transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation or following transcutaneous spinal cord (or transspinal) stimulation. In 38 out of 89 persons with SCI who received locomotor training with the Lokomat, adverse events included mild skin erythema at the sites of the cuffs, and muscle pain while open skin lesions (n = 2), joint pain (n = 2) or tendinopathy (n = 1) were also reported [96 (link)]. The events are predictable and are indicated as potential risks in the Informed Consent Form.
Full text: Click here
Arthralgia
Erythema
Head
Myalgia
Safety
Skin
Spinal Cord
Tendinopathy
Tibia
TimeLine
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Protocol full text hidden due to copyright restrictions
Open the protocol to access the free full text link
Behavior Therapy
Biofeedback
Breathing Exercises
Cranium
Electroacupuncture
Eligibility Determination
Homo sapiens
Imagery, Guided
Meditation
Mindfulness
prisma
Qigong
Stimulation, Transcranial Magnetic
Stimulations, Electric
Therapeutics
Therapy, Physical
Transcendental Meditation
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Yoga
Top products related to «Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation»
Sourced in United Kingdom
The DS7AH is a constant current high-voltage stimulator designed for research and clinical applications. It delivers constant current stimuli up to 400V and 500mA. The device provides precisely controlled electrical stimulation with adjustable pulse width and frequency. It is a versatile and reliable tool for neurophysiological and biomedical research.
The Nicolet Viking EDX is a laboratory equipment product designed for electrophysiological testing. It is capable of recording and analyzing various electrical signals from the human body.
Sourced in Canada
The 305C Muscle Lever System is a specialized laboratory equipment designed for the study of muscle mechanics and physiology. It provides a precise and controlled environment for measuring the contractile properties of isolated muscle preparations.
Sourced in Denmark
The MagPro R30 is a magnetic stimulator device designed for research and clinical applications. It generates magnetic pulses to stimulate the brain and nerves, with adjustable intensity and frequency parameters. The core function of the MagPro R30 is to provide a non-invasive method of neural stimulation.
Sourced in Denmark
The Cool-B65 A/P coil is a lab equipment product designed for magnetic stimulation. It features a figure-of-eight coil configuration with a 65 mm diameter. The coil is actively cooled to maintain consistent performance during operation.
Sourced in Canada
The 305B Muscle Lever System is a research-grade instrument designed for the study of muscle mechanics. It features a high-performance linear motor that can precisely control and measure the force, length, and velocity of isolated muscle preparations. The system is capable of generating and recording data from a variety of tissue types, enabling researchers to investigate muscle function and properties.
Sourced in United States, United Kingdom, Japan
Borosilicate glass capillaries are thin, hollow glass tubes designed for a variety of laboratory applications. They are made from a specialized borosilicate glass composition, which provides high heat resistance and chemical durability. These capillaries are characterized by their precise and consistent dimensions, making them suitable for tasks that require precise fluid handling or sample collection.
Sourced in Denmark, United States
Keypoint is a versatile lab equipment product designed for various applications. It functions as a diagnostic tool, providing precise measurements and analysis capabilities. The core purpose of Keypoint is to assist researchers and professionals in conducting thorough evaluations and assessments within the laboratory setting.
Sourced in United States, Australia
The Alice 6 is a lab equipment product designed for sleep analysis. It is a diagnostic device that records various physiological signals during sleep to help healthcare professionals assess sleep patterns and disorders.
Sourced in United States
The STM200 is a force transducer designed to measure tension, compression, and other mechanical forces. It features a robust construction and a wide measurement range to accommodate a variety of applications.
More about "Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation"
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-invasive therapeutic technique that uses low-voltage electric current to alleviate pain.
It is commonly employed to manage chronic pain conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and neuropathic pain.
TENS works by stimulating the sensory nerves under the skin, which blocks the transmission of pain signals to the brain.
It may also trigger the release of endorphins, the body's natural pain-relieving chemicals.
TENS is considered a safe and effective treatment option, with few side effects when used as directed.
Researchers continue to study the optimal parameters, such as frequency, intensity, and duration, to enhance the efficacy of TENS for different pain conditions.
TENS devices, like the Nicolet Viking EDX, 305C Muscle Lever System, and MagPro R30 stimulator, are used to deliver the electric current.
The Cool-B65 A/P coil and 305B muscle lever system are often employed in conjunction with TENS for targeted nerve stimulation.
Borosilicate glass capillaries may also be used to record neural activity during TENS treatments.
The Keypoint and Alice 6 systems are often used to analyze the physiological effects of TENS, while the STM200 is a commonly used stimulator.
By understanding the various tools and technologies used in TENS research and treatment, clinicians and researchers can optimize their protocols and enhance the reproducibility of their studies.
It is commonly employed to manage chronic pain conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and neuropathic pain.
TENS works by stimulating the sensory nerves under the skin, which blocks the transmission of pain signals to the brain.
It may also trigger the release of endorphins, the body's natural pain-relieving chemicals.
TENS is considered a safe and effective treatment option, with few side effects when used as directed.
Researchers continue to study the optimal parameters, such as frequency, intensity, and duration, to enhance the efficacy of TENS for different pain conditions.
TENS devices, like the Nicolet Viking EDX, 305C Muscle Lever System, and MagPro R30 stimulator, are used to deliver the electric current.
The Cool-B65 A/P coil and 305B muscle lever system are often employed in conjunction with TENS for targeted nerve stimulation.
Borosilicate glass capillaries may also be used to record neural activity during TENS treatments.
The Keypoint and Alice 6 systems are often used to analyze the physiological effects of TENS, while the STM200 is a commonly used stimulator.
By understanding the various tools and technologies used in TENS research and treatment, clinicians and researchers can optimize their protocols and enhance the reproducibility of their studies.