IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0189734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intensity matters: Therapist-dependent dose of spinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Serrano-Muñoz
  • Julio Gómez-Soriano
  • Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban
  • María Vázquez-Fariñas
  • Julian Taylor
  • Juan Avendaño-Coy

Abstract

The intensity used during transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in both, clinical practice and research studies, is often based on subjective commands such as “strong but comfortable sensation”. There is no consensus regarding the effectiveness dose of TENS. The objective was to determine the difference in the effect of spinal TENS on soleus H-reflex modulation when applied by two therapists instructed to apply the stimulation at a “strong but comfortable” intensity. Twenty healthy volunteers divided into two groups: Therapist 1 (n = 10) and Therapist 2 (n = 10). Both therapist applied spinal TENS and sham stimulation at the T10–12 spinal level for 40min in random order to each subject, at an intensity designed to produce a “strong but comfortable” sensation. To avoid habituation, the intensity was adjusted every 2min. Soleus H-reflex was recorded before, during, and 10min after TENS by an observer blinded to the stimulus applied. Despite the instruction to apply TENS at a “strong comfortable” level, a significant difference in current density was identified: Therapist 1 (0.67mA/cm2, SD 0.54) applied more than Therapist 2 (0.53mA/cm2, SD 0.57; p

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Serrano-Muñoz & Julio Gómez-Soriano & Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban & María Vázquez-Fariñas & Julian Taylor & Juan Avendaño-Coy, 2017. "Intensity matters: Therapist-dependent dose of spinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189734
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189734
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189734&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0189734?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.