| Title |
Does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with idiopathic chronic orchialgia? A randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s154815 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sayed A Tantawy, Dalia M Kamel, Walid Kamal Abdelbasset |
| Abstract |
Chronic orchialgia is defined as testicular pain, which may be either unilateral or bilateral, lasting for more than 3 months. It disturbs a patient's daily activities and quality of life (QoL), inciting the patient to search for treatments to alleviate the pain. It is estimated that 25% of chronic orchialgia cases are idiopathic. The purpose of this study was to investigate how effective transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is in pain reduction and how it consequently affects the QoL in patients with idiopathic chronic orchialgia (ICO). Seventy-one patients were randomly assigned to group A (study group), which included 36 patients who received TENS and analgesia, and group B (control group), which included 35 patients who received analgesia only. The outcome measures were the participants' demographic data and results of the visual analog scale (VAS) and QoL questionnaire. These outcomes were measured before and after 4 weeks of treatment and at 2-month follow-up. The results showed that compared to pretreatment, there was a significant reduction in pain postintervention and at 2-month follow-up in group A (P<0.0001 and <0.001, respectively; F=7.1) as well as a significant improvement in QoL at these time points (P<0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively). There were no significant differences in the VAS score and QoL in group B at different time points of evaluation. The findings indicate that TENS is effective in reducing pain and improving patients' QoL in cases of ICO. TENS is an easy-to-use, effective, noninvasive, and simple method for ICO-associated pain control and QoL improvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,501,310
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#923
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,956
of 437,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#32
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.