Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of the study design, participants characteristics, outcome measurements, assessment time and summary of results of included studies

From: The efficacy of intramuscular electrical stimulation in the management of patients with myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review

First author (year)

Type of disorder

Sample size (F/M)

(n)

Age (Mean ± SD)

Exp. group

Cont. group

Outcome measurement

Time of assessment

Main results

Byeon [26] (2003)

UT MPS

20 (8/12)

Exp.: 10

Cont.: 10

Total participants:

50.7 ± 10.1

IMES

DN

VAS

MPQ

Neck ROM (lateral flex.)

Before

Three days

One week

Two weeks

No significant difference of all outcome measurements between groups in all assessment times

Sumen [21] (2015)

MPS

30 (22/8)

Exp.: 15

Cont.: 15

Total Participants:

38.6*

SIMES + Stretching exercise

Home-based stretching exercise twice daily (10 repetition)

VAS

PPT

Neck ROM (opposite side lateral Flex.)

NDI

Before

After

One month

Significantly VAS decrease & PPT increase in experimental than control groups in all assessment times

Medeiros [22] (2016)

MPS

23 (23/0)

Exp.: 11

Cont.: 12

Exp.: 49.18 ± 11.63

Cont.: 45.83 ± 9.63

Sham-rTMS + IMES

Sham-rTMS + Sham-IMES

VAS

Peripheral biomarkers

Cortical excitability parameters

End of every session

Before

After

Significant pain decreases in experimental group than control group

There was not any change in all peripheral biomarker’s parameters in both groups

Hadizadeh [23] (2017)

UT MPS

16 (16/0)

Exp.: 8

Cont.: 8

Exp.: 24.6 ± 6.4

Cont.: 26.7 ± 6.5

IMES

Sham-IMES

VAS

Neck ROM

Before

After

One week

Significantly higher ROM in IMES group compared to control group one week after treatment

No significant differences of pain in the all assessment times

Botelho [24] (2018)

MPS

24 (24/0)

Exp.: 12

Cont.: 12

Exp.: 48.36*

Cont.: 46*

IMES

Sham-IMES

VAS

B-PCP:S

Cortical excitability parameters

taking analgesic during the treatment

Before

After

Experimental group presented lower pain and disability in comparison to control group significantly

Analgesic use was 69.4% in sham group and 30.6% in EIMS

Brennan [25] (2020)

MPS

45(37/8)

Exp.: 20

Cont.: 25

Exp.: 28 ± 9.99

Cont.: 26.32 ± 8.94

IMES

DN

NPRS

NDI

Before

3th week

6th week

12th week

At no time did NDI or NPRS differ significantly between groups

  1. F female, M male, n number, SD standard deviation, Exp. Experimental, Cont. control, UT upper trapezius, MPS myofascial pain syndrome, IMES intramuscular electrical stimulation, DN dry needling, VAS visual analogue scale, MPQ McGill pain questionnaire, ROM range of motion, Flex. Flexion, SIMES sensory intramuscular electrical stimulation, PPT pain pressure threshold, NDI neck disability index, rTMS repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, B-PCP:S Brazilian profile of chronic pain: screen, NPRS numeric pain rating scale
  2. *Standard deviation was not reported