ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Interferential Current (IFC) and Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) in the treatment of sports-related pain: a scoping review with an evidence gap map.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intramuscular electrical stimulation added to home exercise for myofascial shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to synthesize the methodological characteristics of electrical stimulation techniques for managing sports-related pain, summarize their effects on pain intensity, and identify evidence gaps. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted on June 27, 2025, across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed trials involving competitive athletes (all ages, sexes, and performance tiers) treated with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES), or percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) for sports-related pain. During screening, we also included trials of related electrical stimulation modalities (e.g., interferential current (IFC), excitomotor neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and TECAR) when they were explicitly used to treat sports-related pain in competitive athletes. Study designs included randomized controlled trials, crossover trials, and retrospective cohort studies. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Eight studies met inclusion criteria (from 9,087 non-duplicated records). Participants were competitive athletes (Tier 1–4; mean age 21.0 ± 2.9 to 35.2 ± 9.8 years), with 62.5% mixed-sex cohorts. TENS was used in 75% of studies; IFC, Excitomotor, TECAR, and PNE each appeared in one. No eligible studies evaluating IMES in the athletic population were found. Pain reduction (p ≤ 0.05) was reported in 62.5% of studies, with TENS effective in 66.7% (4/6). Combined approaches (e.g., TENS + diaphragm training; PNE + eccentric exercise) showed greater reductions (p ≤ 0.001). Comparators included placebo (37.5%), rest (25%), and exercise (12.5%). Current, limited, and heterogeneous evidence suggests that TENS may reduce pain intensity in athletes, particularly when combined with exercise-based rehabilitation, but overall certainty is low. However, the available evidence on PNE is scarce, and evidence on IMES in athletes is lacking. Standardized protocols, sex-specific analyses, and longitudinal studies are needed to improve clinical applicability and understand long-term effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.