• Mark I Johnson and Ghazala Tabasam.
• School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Environment, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. M.Johnson@LMU.ac.uk
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Mar 1; 84 (3): 350-7.

ObjectiveTo compare the analgesic effects of differing swing patterns of interferential current (IFC) on cold-induced pain.DesignSingle-blind intervention study in which subjects completed 6 cycles of the cold-induced pain test-2 pretreatment, 2 during treatment, and 2 posttreatment.SettingLaboratory.ParticipantsForty healthy volunteers.InterventionsSubjects were randomly allocated to receive 1 of 4 IFC treatment interventions: 1 integral 1, 6 integral 6, 6 wedge 6, or burst. IFC was administered for 20 minutes via 4 electrodes attached to the forearm (quadripolar application) at a strong but comfortable intensity using amplitude-modulated frequencies of 1 to 100 Hz.Main Outcome MeasuresChange in pain threshold and self-report of pain intensity and unpleasantness from pretreatment baseline.ResultsTwo-way repeated-measure analysis of variance found significant effects for time and group by time interaction (P<.01), but effects for groups failed to reach statistical significance (P=0.1). This suggests that when all groups are considered together, subjects experience a rise in pain threshold when IFC devices are switched on but not when they are switched off. However, the rise in pain threshold was not dependent on the swing pattern employed. Analysis of pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings found no effects for group or group by time interaction.ConclusionsThere were no differences in the hypoalgesic effects of different swing patterns.Copyright 2003 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

21 keywords...

hide…