Effects of TENS frequency, intensity and stimulation site parameter manipulation on pressure pain thresholds in healthy human subjects
Abstract
Unlabelled This study evaluated the effects of varying frequency, intensity and stimulation site, of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in an experimental model of pain. In a double-blind design 240 volunteers were randomised to one of six experimental TENS groups, a sham TENS or control (n=30 per group; gender balanced). Two TENS frequencies (110 or 4 Hz) and two intensities (strong but comfortable or highest tolerable) at a fixed pulse duration (200 micros) were applied at three sites relative to the measurement site (segmentally, extrasegmentally or a combination of these), for 30 min. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were measured using a pressure algometer, in the first dorsal interosseous muscle, every 10 min, during stimulation and for a further 30 min. The high frequency, high intensity segmental, and combined stimulation groups, showed rapid onset and significant hypoalgesic effects. This effect was sustained for 20 min post-stimulation in the high frequency segmental group. All other TENS intervention groups showed hypoalgesic responses similar to the sham TENS group, and none of these groups reached a clinically significant hypoalgesic level. Conclusions The role of TENS frequency, intensity and site are pivotal to achieving optimal hypoalgesic effects, during and after stimulation. Clinical applications of these parameter combinations require further investigations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The minimal important difference for PPTs has been reported to be >=1.10 kg/cm2/s.
“The minimal important difference for PPTs has been reported to be Ն1.10 kg/cm 2 /s.39,40”
From Effectiveness of Manual Therapy and Therapeutic Exercise for Temporomandibular Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Armijo-Olivo, S., Pitance, L., Singh, V., Neto, F., Thie, N., & Michelotti, A. (2016) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20140548 · Cited by 413 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chesterton, L. S., Foster, N. E., Wright, C. C., Baxter, D. G., & Barlas, P.
- Affiliations
- Keele University (GB)
- Coventry University (GB)
- University of Ulster (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chesterton, Linda S
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-80
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026715651
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Keywords
- transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, stimulation site, pressure pain threshold, hypoalgesia, pain modulation, first dorsal interosseous muscle, sham stimulation, experimental pain
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pressure, Reference Values, Pain Threshold, Pain Management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review