Уважаемые коллеги метод который используется в приборе ДЭНАС называется чрескожная электронейростимуляция и к шарлатанству не имеет никакого отношения. Другой вопрос, что эффективность не такая высока, как бы хотелось, но тем не менее вот ряд ссылок. Привожу наиболее взвешенные.
: Disabil Rehabil. 2002 May 20;24(8):407-15. Related Articles,Links
Electrical stimulation in the treatment of pain.
Rushton DN.
Frank Cooksey Rehabilitation Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ, UK. david.rushton@kingshc.nhs.uk
PURPOSE: To review the published literature concerning the treatment of painful conditions using devices that deliver electrical stimulation to nervous structures. The review briefly surveys the results obtained using surface electrodes ("TENS") as well as implanted devices. METHOD: The method used is a critical review of the important published literature up to mid-1999. References were obtained using Medline and the keywords "pain", together with "electrical", "stimulation", "neurostimulation" or "TENS". RESULTS: Electrical stimulation has been found to be of potential benefit in the management of a range of painful conditions. Adequately controlled trials of electrical stimulation are often difficult to achieve. Implanted devices tend to be used in the more severe intractable pain conditions. It is likely that there is more than one mechanism of action. The mechanisms of action are however still often poorly understood, even though historically theoretical and experimental advances in the understanding of pain mechanisms prompted the development of clinical systems and the institution of clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: TENS has proved to be remarkably safe, and provides significant analgesia in about half of patients experiencing moderate predictable pain. Implanted devices can be more effective, but they carry a risk of device failure, implant infection or surgical complication, and are reserved for the more severe intractable chronic pains. The main implanted devices used clinically are the spinal cord stimulator and the deep brain stimulator.
Spine. 2002 Mar 15;27(6):596-603. Related Articles,Links
Efficacy of the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis.
Brosseau L, Milne S, Robinson V, Marchand S, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P.
Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. lbrossea@uottawa.ca
BACKGROUND: Low back pain affects a large proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an alternative therapy to pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain. However, despite its widespread use, the efficacy of TENS is still controversial. PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to June 1, 2000. Only randomized controlled clinical trials of TENS for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic low back pain were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. DATA ANALYSIS: Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. Standardized mean differences were used when different scales were integrated to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 170 subjects randomized to the placebo group receiving sham TENS and 251 subjects receiving active TENS (153 for conventional mode, 98 for acupuncture-like TENS). The schedule of treatments varied greatly between studies ranging from one treatment/day for 2 consecutive days, to three treatments/day for 4 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between the active TENS group compared with the placebo TENS group for any outcome measures. Subgroup analysis performed on TENS application and methodologic quality did not demonstrate a significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). Remaining preplanned subgroup analysis was not conducted because of the small number of included trials and the variety of outcome measures reported. CONCLUSION: The results of the meta-analysis present no evidence to support the use or nonuse of TENS alone in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Considering the small number of studies responding to the criteria to be included in this meta-analysis, it is clear that more appropriately designed studies are needed before a final conclusion. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the TENS device and the application techniques used. New trials on TENS should make use of standardized outcome measures. This meta-analysis lacked data on how TENS efficacy is affected by four important factors: type of applications, site of application, treatment duration of TENS, and optimal frequencies and intensities.
: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Nov;81(11):838-43. Related Articles,Links
One-shot percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation vs. transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for low back pain: comparison of therapeutic effects.
Hsieh RL, Lee WC.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shin Kong Wo Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Shih Lin District, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic effects of one shot of low-frequency percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation one shot of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with low back pain. DESIGN: In total, 133 low back pain patients were recruited for this randomized, control study. Group 1 patients received medication only. Group 2 patients received medication plus one shot of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Group 3 patients received medication plus one shot of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Therapeutic effects were measured using a visual analog scale, body surface score, pain pressure threshold, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. RESULTS: Immediately after one-shot treatment, the visual analog scale improved 1.53 units and the body surface score improved 3.06 units in the percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group. In the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group, the visual analog scale improved 1.50 units and the body surface score improved 3.98 units. The improvements did not differ between the two groups. There were no differences in improvement at 3 days or 1 wk after the treatment among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simple one-shot treatment with percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation provided immediate pain relief for low back pain patients. One-shot transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatment is recommended due to the rarity of side effects and its convenient application.
