Search

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980–2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980–2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980–2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980–2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Past studies have suggested that pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy can decrease pain. To date, however, it remains difficult to determine if the analgesic effect observed in patients are attributable to a direct effect of PEMF on pain or to an indirect effect of PEMF on inflammation and healing. In the present study, we used an experimental pain paradigm to evaluate the direct effect of PEMF on pain intensity, pain unpleasantness and temporal summation of pain. Twenty-four healthy subjects (mean age 22 ± 2 years; 9 males) participated in the experiment. Both real and sham PEMF were administered to every participant using a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. For each visit, PEMF was applied for 10 minutes on the right forearm using a portable device. Experimental pain was evoked before (baseline) and after PEMF with a 9 cm2 Pelletier type thermode, applied on the right forearm (120 sec stimulation; temperature individually adjusted to produce moderate baseline pain). Pain intensity and unpleasantness were evaluated using a 0-100 numerical pain rating scale. Temporal summation was evaluated by comparing pain intensity ratings obtained at the end of tonic nociceptive stimulation (120 sec) with pain intensity ratings obtained after 60 sec of stimulation. When compared to baseline, there was no change in pain intensity and unpleasantness following the application of real or sham PEMF. PEMF did not affect temporal summation. The present observations suggest that PEMF does not directly influence heat pain perception in healthy individuals.