Dataset Information

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Electrical stimulation is a common adjunct used to promote bone healing; its efficacy, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized sham-controlled trials to establish the efficacy of electrical stimulation for bone healing. We identified all trials randomizing patients to electrical or sham stimulation for bone healing. Outcomes were pain relief, functional improvement, and radiographic nonunion. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias, performed data extraction, and rated the quality of the evidence. Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria. Moderate quality evidence from 4 trials found that stimulation produced a significant improvement in pain (mean difference (MD) on 100-millimeter visual analogue scale?=?-7.7?mm; 95% CI -13.92 to -1.43; p?=?0.02). Two trials found no difference in functional outcome (MD?=?-0.88; 95% CI -6.63 to 4.87; p?=?0.76). Moderate quality evidence from 15 trials found that stimulation reduced radiographic nonunion rates by 35% (95% CI 19% to 47%; number needed to treat?=?7; p?

SUBMITTER: Aleem IS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4990885 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

Aleem Ilyas S IS Aleem Idris I Evaniew Nathan N Busse Jason W JW Yaszemski Michael M Agarwal Arnav A Einhorn Thomas T Bhandari Mohit M

Scientific reports 20160819

Electrical stimulation is a common adjunct used to promote bone healing; its efficacy, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized sham-controlled trials to establish the efficacy of electrical stimulation for bone healing. We identified all trials randomizing patients to electrical or sham stimulation for bone healing. Outcomes were pain relief, functional improvement, and radiographic nonunion. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias, performed data extra ...[more]

PMID: 27539550

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty).Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965.

Project description:Objectives: Transcranial electric stimulation (TES) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have experienced significant development in treating insomnia. This review aims to examine the effectiveness of randomized sham-controlled trials of TES and rTMS in improving insomnia and examine potential moderators associated with the effect of the treatment. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched for studies comparing the effects of TES/rTMS with sham group on insomnia from the inception of these databases to June 25, 2021, namely, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis, and CNKI. Meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effect of TES and rTMS in treating insomnia. Univariate meta-regression was performed to explore potential treatment moderators that may influence the pooled results. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: A total of 16 TES studies and 27 rTMS studies were included in this review. The pooled results indicated that there was no significant difference between the TES group and the sham group in improving objective measures of sleep. rTMS was superior to its sham group in improving sleep efficiency, total sleep time, sleep onset latency, wake up after sleep onset, and number of awakenings (all p < 0.05). Both TES and rTMS were superior to their sham counterparts in improving sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index at post-intervention. The weighted mean difference for TES and rTMS were -1.17 (95% CI: -1.98, -0.36) and -4.08 (95% CI: -4.86, -3.30), respectively. Gender, total treatment sessions, number of pulses per session, and length of treatment per session were associated with rTMS efficacy. No significant relationship was observed between TES efficacy and the stimulation parameters. Conclusions: It seems that TES and rTMS have a chance to play a decisive role in the therapy of insomnia. Possible dose-dependent and gender difference effects of rTMS are suggested.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

Publications

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets