Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Hirotaka Iijima, Masaki Takahashi, Yuto Tashiro, Tomoki Aoyama

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort. Data sources The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science. Review methods Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model. Results In total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies. Conclusions This meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0195236
JournalPLoS One
Volume13
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Apr 1

Fingerprint

systematic review
Torque
meta-analysis
Electric Stimulation
Muscle
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Muscles
torque
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
confidence interval
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
muscles
electronics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations : A systematic review with meta-analysis. / Iijima, Hirotaka; Takahashi, Masaki; Tashiro, Yuto; Aoyama, Tomoki.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 4, e0195236, 01.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d4d170fdc9144d989fd6f17d981eb6b8,
title = "Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations: A systematic review with meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective This study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort. Data sources The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science. Review methods Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95{\%} confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model. Results In total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95{\%} CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95{\%} CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies. Conclusions This meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.",
author = "Hirotaka Iijima and Masaki Takahashi and Yuto Tashiro and Tomoki Aoyama",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0195236",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations

T2 - A systematic review with meta-analysis

AU - Iijima, Hirotaka

AU - Takahashi, Masaki

AU - Tashiro, Yuto

AU - Aoyama, Tomoki

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Objective This study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort. Data sources The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science. Review methods Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model. Results In total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies. Conclusions This meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.

AB - Objective This study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort. Data sources The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science. Review methods Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model. Results In total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies. Conclusions This meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045922139&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045922139&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0195236

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0195236

M3 - Article

C2 - 29689079

AN - SCOPUS:85045922139

VL - 13

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 4

M1 - e0195236

ER -