• Huimin Tao, Teng Wang, Xin Dong, Qi Guo, Huan Xu, and Qi Wan.
• Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu Province, China.
• J Headache Pain. 2018 May 29; 19 (1): 42.

BackgroundMigraine is now ranked as the second most disabling disorder worldwide reported by the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. As a noninvasive neurostimulation technique, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation(TENS) has been applied as an abortive and prophylactic treatment for migraine recently. We conduct this meta-analysis to analyze the effectiveness and safety of TENS on migraineurs.MethodsWe searched Medline (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared the effect of TENS with sham TENS on migraineurs. Data were extracted and methodological quality assessed independently by two reviewers. Change in the number of monthly headache days, responder rate, painkiller intake, adverse events and satisfaction were extracted as outcome.ResultsFour studies were included in the quantitative analysis with 161 migraine patients in real TENS group and 115 in sham TENS group. We found significant reduction of monthly headache days (SMD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.73 to - 0.23; P < 0.001) and painkiller intake (SMD: -0.78; 95% CI: -1.14 to - 0.42; P < 0.001). Responder rate (RR: 4.05; 95% CI: 2.06 to 7.97; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (RR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.31 to 2,61; P < 0.001) were significantly increased compared with sham TENS.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that TENS may serve as an effective and well-tolerated alternative for migraineurs. However, low quality of evidence prevents us from reaching definitive conclusions. Future well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.Systematic Review RegistrationOur PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42018085984 . Registered 30 January 2018.

16 keywords...

hide…