Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation vs. Transcutaneous ...

410

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Vol. 33 No. 4 April 2007

Original Article

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation vs. Transcutaneous Spinal Electroanalgesia for Chronic Pain Associated with Breast Cancer Treatments Karen A. Robb, PhD, MCSP, Di J. Newham, PhD, MCSP, and John E. Williams, MBBS, FRCS Division of Applied Biomedical Sciences Research (K.A.R., D.J.N.), School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, King’s College London; and The Pain Management Team (J.E.W.), The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom

Abstract Chronic pain associated with breast cancer treatment is becoming increasingly recognized. Patients with this condition can experience significant physical and psychological morbidity and may benefit from nonpharmacological interventions as part of a multidisciplinary team approach. We compared the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia (TSE), and a placebo (sham TSE) in a randomized controlled trial. The study sample comprised 41 women with chronic pain following breast cancer treatment, and outcome measures included pain report, pain relief, pain interference, anxiety and depression, arm mobility, and analgesic consumption. There was little evidence to suggest that TENS or TSE were more effective than placebo. All three interventions had beneficial effects on both pain report and quality of life, a finding that may be due to either psychophysical improvements resulting from the personal interaction involved in the treatment or a placebo response. Although electrical stimulation appears to be well tolerated in this population, further research is needed to establish its effectiveness for chronic cancer treatment-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007;33:410e419. Ó 2007 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Key Words Electrical stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcutaneous spinal electroanalagesia (TSE), RCT, chronic pain, breast cancer, cancer pain

Introduction Address reprint requests to: Karen A. Robb, PhD, MCSP, Division of Applied Biomedical Sciences Research, School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Shepherds House, Guys Campus, King’s College London, London SE1 1UL, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Accepted for publication: September 13, 2006. Ó 2007 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

There are many reasons why a patient with breast cancer may experience pain. These include pain associated with the disease, pain associated with the cancer treatments, and associated comorbid conditions.1 Treatmentrelated pain problems are becoming increasingly recognized and have been investigated by many authors.2e8 The bulk of this research 0885-3924/07/$esee front matter doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.09.020


TENS vs. TSE for Chronic Pain in Breast Cancer Patients

addresses postsurgical sequelae, such as postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) and highlights that pain can coexist with a range of other symptoms, including sensory disturbances, edema, loss of shoulder mobility, and anxiety and depression. Pain problems following radiotherapy have also been reported in a small minority of women who experience chronic neuropathic pain and severe side effects, including arm weakness and sensory disturbances. Women with radiation-induced brachial plexopathy (RIBP) gained much attention in the last decade and campaigned strongly for improved understanding and better management of their condition.4 It has been suggested that pain problems following breast cancer treatment are underrecognized and undertreated,7,9 with many women taking no medication for their pain. Clinical experience suggests that many women are hesitant to take medication due to concerns about unwanted side effects. This is reflected in the literature, with drugs such as amitriptyline showing good analgesic effect but poor side effect profiles.10 Although cancer pain management predominately uses the biomedical approach, such as drug therapy, or other medical or surgical treatments,11 there is strong evidence that chronic pain problems demand a more biopsychosocial approach. Evidence for a biopsychosocial model of cancer treatment-related pain has been presented,12 and recent research has demonstrated the complex, multidimensional nature of cancer treatmentrelated pain and the need for innovative approaches.13 Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been widely used for many years to manage a range of acute and chronic pain problems. There are currently five Cochrane systematic reviews addressing the use of TENS for noncancer pain,14e18 as well as excellent review articles.19e21 There is some controversy over the use of TENS in chronic pain, with most review papers citing the need for further research using large multicenter, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Unfortunately, when examining TENS use in cancer pain, the evidence is inconclusive, with very few studies and only one systematic review.22 In recent years, there also has been some attention given to transcutaneous spinal

411

electroanalgesia (TSE),23 a method of electrical stimulation that uses electrodes placed over the spine and operates at a higher frequency than traditional TENS. With TSE stimulation, there is no sensory stimulation, making it easier to perform blind assessments within a clinical trial. There is a paucity of research evidence on TSE and the underlying mechanisms of action are largely unknown. One RCT examined its use in pain due to critical limb ischemia,24 but found no improvements in pain or physical activity after regular use for one week. This was a small study and it is clear that further work is needed to evaluate the effects of TSE. We are not aware of any controlled trials that compare nondrug electrical treatments for chronic pain associated with breast cancer. We examined the effect of both TENS and TSE for women with pain problems secondary to breast cancer treatment to establish whether they had potential as part of a multidisciplinary management approach.

Methods Study Design This study used a double-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover trial design with a singleblind arm (see Intervention) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Fig. 1). Patients were randomized with the help of a trial assistant and a computer-generated random number chart. Randomization was stratified according to the degree of average pain documented on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) question three (see Outcome Measures). Scores were classified based on previous work:25 mild pain (0e4), moderate pain (5e6), and severe pain (7e10).

Sample Patients were eligible for the trial if they had a history of breast cancer and chronic pain for at least six months’ duration and secondary to treatment for breast cancer. Patients were not eligible if they were under 18 years of age, had evidence of recurrent cancer, were incompetent or unable to follow the author’s instructions, had pain due to a neurological condition (e.g., stroke), had complete lack of

412

Robb et al.


Is patient suitable for trial?

Yes

Further treatment decided

No

Patient Information Sheet given

2 weeks thinking time allowed Yes

Is patient willing to continue

No

Is more thinking time required

No

Yes Consent Process

Baseline assessment Completion of BPI and HAD Questionnaires

Randomization Processa to determine order of treatment (n=49) Gp 1 (n=9)

Gp 2 (n=6)

Gp 3 (n=9)

Gp 4 (n=10)

Gp 5 (n=7)

Gp 6 (n=8)

aRandomization stratified according to average pain (BPI), i.e., mild, moderate, severe. Randomized to 1 of 6 groups of Rx: Gp1) TENS, TSE, Pl; Gp2) TENS, Pl, TSE; Gp3) TSE, TENS, Pl; Gp4) TSE, Pl, TENS; Gp5) Pl, TSE, TENS; Gp6) Pl, TENS, TSE

Comprehensive instructions on use of allocated machine

3 weeks of home treatment

Review by physiotherapist Completion of assessments and outcome measures

No

Has patient received all 3 treatments?

Yes

Final assessment and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (n= 41)

Fig. 1. Summary of trial methodology.

Review procedure (n= 41)



skin sensation in the areas to be treated, or had previous experience of TENS or TSE. All patients were given written and verbal information prior to commencing the trial and all gave full verbal and written consent to participate. Patients were advised to keep other pain treatments stable during the trial and a letter was sent accordingly to their general practitioner.

Interventions All patients received two potentially active treatments (TENS and TSE) and one placebo in an order determined by randomization. The TENS machines were dual channel stimulators with self-adhesive pads (Spembly Medical Limited). The TSE and placebo machines were manufactured by Advanced Pain Management Ltd. The placebo devices were identical to the active machines but were disabled by the use of disabled wires. The wires were individually coded, and this information was held secure by the trial assistant until the trial was complete. Patients were taught to use each intervention after full assessment. Neither the author (K. R.) nor the patients were aware of when a placebo machine was being used. Procedure for TENS. Patients were requested to put the electrodes in the area of pain identified by prior examination, avoiding areas of anesthesia and/or allodynia. The TENS was selected to operate in ‘‘continuous mode’’ with a ‘‘strong but comfortable’’ paresthesia. Clinical experience and the literature suggest that conventional TENS is the most commonly used and we advised high-frequency, lowintensity stimulation. Patients were advised to start off with a short treatment to assess potential side effects and then to use as needed, when in pain. They were encouraged to manipulate TENS parameters to find the optimal treatment parameters for their pain. This method of ‘‘trial and error’’ reflects routine clinical practice. On completion of this part of the trial, protocol photographs were taken (with verbal and written consent) of preferred electrode placement. Procedure for TSE and Placebo. Instructions on use were based on the instruction booklet, with pain in the neck, arm, or hand treated with two pads paravertebrally at the C3eC4

413

level, and all pains below treated with two pads over the spinous processes of T1 and T10. Treatment times were advised to be 10e30 minutes on full intensity. The frequency of treatment depended on when pain was experienced. Patients used each treatment at home for three weeks, with a one-week ‘‘washout’’ period. Patients kept a pain diary reporting date and time of use, parameters of treatment, % pain relief, and analgesics used. Patients were telephoned after one week to monitor progress and were reviewed in person after three weeks.

Outcome Measures The main outcome measures used were as follows. The BPI Short Form26 (our primary measure), measured pain, its interference with daily activities, and pain relief. This was completed at baseline, then weekly thereafter while receiving treatment. Posttreatment assessments were completed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Scale27 was completed at baseline, then weekly thereafter while receiving treatment. Post-treatment assessments were completed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Range of movement at the ipsilateral shoulder joint (flexion and abduction in degrees) was measured at baseline and at the end of each intervention. Information from pain diaries documented the use of all three machines, including pain relief and analgesic consumption, and was completed daily. A brief questionnaire was designed to assess patient satisfaction with each intervention and was recorded on completion of all three arms of the trial.

Statistical Analysis All data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Program (SPSS, Version 10, King’s College, London, UK). Outcome measures were examined using both descriptive statistics and statistical tests. The main statistical tests used were the Friedman test and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, with some use of the Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests. These are well suited to nonparametric

414

Robb et al.


data.28 Statistical significance was set at an alpha of 0.05.

Table 1 Summary of Baseline Outcome Measures for the 41 Patients Who Completed the Trial Outcome Measure

Results Demographic Data Forty-nine women commenced the trial and 41 completed the study. The reasons for noncompletion were pain increased (n ¼ 2), pain resolved (n ¼ 2), skin reaction (n ¼ 1), and other (n ¼ 3). About 50% of the women had PMPS, approximately 20% had RIBP, and the rest had a mixed clinical picture. The mean age was 58 years (median 59, range 38e60 years) and the mean duration of pain was 51 months (median 31, range 6e182 months). All of the women had received surgical treatment for breast cancer; 93% had also undergone radiotherapy, 37% had received chemotherapy, and 37% had received all three treatments. The majority (87%) were Caucasian, married (61%), and working (44%), as opposed to retired (32%) or not working (24%). The majority had received some form of postoperative physiotherapy (61%). The amount of previous physiotherapy varied greatly and could not always be recalled. Women lost to follow-up were broadly similar.

Baseline Measures Median scores for the group are presented, as the data had a skewed distribution. The worst pain score (0e10 VAS) at baseline was 7 (severe), average pain was 6 (moderate), and pain relief with current medications/treatments was 40%. The anxiety score was 8 (borderline abnormal) and the depression score was 5 (normal). The range of ipsilateral shoulder movement was 130 flexion and 140 abduction. The majority of women (34%) were using simple analgesics, 27% were taking World Health Organization Group 2 analgesics, 5% were using Group 3, and 27% were not using any medication at all. Although no statistically significant differences were found in the group lost to follow-up, the median anxiety (11 vs. 8) and depression scores (8 vs. 5) were higher in this group; this was potentially clinically significant and may explain why these women were less able to deal with the demands of the trial. A summary of the baseline measures is shown in Table 1.

Median

Range

7 6 4 40 8 5 32 130 140

3e10 3e10 1e10 0e80 0e21 1e16 8e58 40e160 40e180

Worst pain 0e10 Average pain 0e10 Least pain 0e10 Pain relief (%) Anxiety 0e21 Depression 0e21 Interference score 0e70 Shoulder flexiona Shoulder abductiona a

Degrees of movement.

Group Comparisons Maximum, median, and final recorded scores for all outcomes were examined. No significant differences were found between groups for worst pain, least pain, or average pain scores. No significant differences were found in pain relief scores from the weekly BPI or pain diaries. The TENS resulted in significantly lower maximum pain interference scores (Wilcoxon P ¼ 0.04), although there were no significant differences when least and last recorded interference scores were compared. There were no significant differences between groups for anxiety, depression, or shoulder range of movement. When examining the brief questionnaire, TENS was considered significantly more effective than TSE or placebo (Chi-squared P < 0.001) (Table 2). All three machines were considered easy to use and well explained by the majority of women. Twenty-six women (63%) decided to continue with treatment; of these, the majority (51%) requested to continue with the TENS machine, 23% with the TSE, and 33% with the placebo. Overall, few women thought they knew which was the placebo arm.

Table 2 Results from the Brief Questionnaire: Effectiveness of Each Intervention Placebo

TENS

TSE

Effectiveness Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Very effective Effective Not effective Total

6 8 25 39

15 21 64 100

9 19 11 39

23 49 28 100

6 5 29 40

15 12 73 100

A significant difference was found between TENS and TSE and TENS and placebo (Chi-squared P < 0.001) when examining the data for patients who scored ‘‘effective.’’



415

groups. The majority of this group (58%) reported taking less daily medication. Five patients in this group (42%) managed to discontinue their medication altogether; four of these were using only simple analgesics prior to the trial, although one woman was using strong opioids and adjuvants.

Pre- and Post-treatment Comparisons Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation. Women reported significantly lower worst (P < 0.001) and average pain (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.01), and interference scores (P < 0.001), and significantly greater shoulder flexion (P < 0.05) with use of the TENS. Worst pain scores dropped from the severe to the moderate category and anxiety scores dropped from borderline normal to within the normal range. The increase in shoulder flexion was negligible and showed statistical, but not probable, clinical significance (Table 3).

Other Important Findings Some important qualitative data emerged from this trial. Formal analysis methods were not used but some clear themes appeared. Other body pains often complicated matters and assessing pain relief was not easy. Psychological factors were considered very important by patients. A majority of women expressed a fear of cancer recurrence, which affected pain and anxiety levels. The most significant finding was that the majority of women (95%), on completion of the trial, reported great benefit from the opportunity to discuss their pain problem(s) in detail, that is, to have their pain ‘‘validated.’’ They reported dissatisfaction with consultations elsewhere and the majority admitted knowing little about the cause(s) of their pain and the potential for treatment.

Transcutaneous Spinal Electroanalgesia. Women reported significantly lower worst (P < 0.001) and average pain, (P < 0.001) and interference scores (P < 0.01) with use of the TSE than they did at baseline. Worst pain scores dropped from the severe to the moderate category. Pain relief did not improve with the TSE and a similar result was found to that of the placebo. Placebo. Women reported significantly lower worst (P < 0.01) and average pain (P < 0.001), interference (P < 0.01) and anxiety scores (P < 0.05) with use of the placebo than they did at baseline. Worst pain scores dropped from the severe to the moderate category and anxiety dropped from borderline to within normal range. Analgesic use remained constant in 29 patients (71%) representing all three diagnostic groups. Twelve patients (29%) indicated that their analgesic requirements were less and these patients also came from all diagnostic

Long-Term Follow-Up The number of subjects who actually continued with devices on completion of the trial was TENS (n ¼ 15), TSE (n ¼ 5), and placebo (n ¼ 6). This was less than suggested by the brief questionnaire. Five women (12%) died from their disease and the remainder were unavailable.

Table 3 Median Values (Range) for Outcome Measures at Baseline and Day 21 for Each Intervention Scores at Baseline and After 21 Days for Each Experimental Group Baseline Median (Range) Placebo Median (Range) TSE Median (Range) TENS Median (Range) Worst pain 0e10 Average pain 0e10 Least pain 0e10 Pain relief (%) Interference score 0e70 Anxiety score 0e21 Depression score 0e21 Shoulder flexion ( ) Shoulder abduction ( )

7 6 4 40 32 8 5 130 140

(3e10) (3e10) (1e10) (0e80) (8e58) (0e21) (1e16) (40e160) (40e180)

6 5 4 30 22 7 4 130 125

(1e10)a (1e8)b (1e9) (0e90) (7e57)a (0e18)c (0e14) (45e170) (45e180)

6 5 3 30 27 6 5 135 135

(1e10)b (1e8)b (1e8) (0e100) (7e63)a (0e21) (0e16) (45e175) (40e180)

6 5 3 50 22 7 4 135 130

(2e9)b (1e8)b (1e8) (0e100) (7e56)b (0e17)a (0e12) (40e170)c (45e180)

Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon test and statistical significance is shown by superscript (aP < 0.01; bP < 0.001; cP < 0.05). There were few differences between the three treatments.

416

Robb et al.

Subjects Using TENS. The majority were still using the machine with good effect at 3 (n ¼ 14, 93%) and 12 months (n ¼ 10, 66%). Subjects Using TSE. Three women (60%) were still using the TSE at 3 and 12 months. Subjects Using Placebo. Four (67%) and two subjects (50%) were still benefiting from treatment at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Subjects Who Did Not Continue with a Device. The majority reported no change in pain.

Discussion These women were a particularly challenging group of patients, as they displayed the anxieties and concerns so commonly associated with breast cancer survivors, such as fear of recurrence and hypervigilance, and also had characteristics representative of chronic pain patients, such as anxiety and depression, and excessive pain reporting. This meant that the pain problem(s) they described were very individualized and often multifactorial. They were considered to be representative of the breast cancer population of their age, cancer treatment, and social demographics, but there were many pretreatment variables, which may have affected their prognosis. The presence of a chronic treatment-related and painful condition meant that these women were constantly reminded of their disease, probably more so than other breast cancer survivors would be. Much of the literature on pain associated with breast cancer treatment describes the subjects in a similar way.13 No significant differences existed between the two treatments and placebo using pain report alone. However, examining pre- and posttreatment results, all three interventions improved worst and average pain scores compared with baseline. This may have been regression to the mean, as patients could have entered this trial when their pain levels were high. For worst pain, results were identical for each intervention, clinically significant, and represented a drop from the severe to the moderate pain category. This is an important finding, as pain severity, in particular worst pain, has been shown to be closely linked with pain interference29,30


and is one of the most important measures in pain research. These results suggest that all three interventions helped control exacerbations of pain throughout a three-week trial, although they did not show that one intervention was more effective. It was evident that patients encountered difficulties with reporting pain relief, as there were inconsistencies between pain relief scores recorded with the pain diaries and the BPI forms. Pain relief for all three interventions was consistently higher with the BPI, which relied on accurate memory of, and the patients’ ability to summarize, pain relief. It has previously been shown that ‘‘reports of perceived pain relief do not necessarily reflect true changes in pain.’’31 This is probably true for this study, as pain relief scores did not reflect the changes in pain report during treatment with each intervention. It was difficult to analyze improvements in psychological status, as the baseline scores were not particularly high. Although statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between groups, comparisons of pre- and posttreatments highlighted that after TENS and placebo, patients were scoring lower anxiety scores (the TSE result was almost significant). There are three possible reasons for this, which may coexist and all have potential clinical significance:

1. The reduction in anxiety scores was related to the pain reports. If patients were experiencing less pain with treatments, they would presumably have felt less anxiety and more positive about their condition. 2. Patients gained an internal locus of control with the use of these machines. Sense of control has been an important feature in the study and management of chronic pain.32,33 Use of devices such as TENS is, in some respects, a self-management approache, as they encourage more active patient participation. 3. The reduction in anxiety scores was related to pain interference (see below). As basic functioning improved, patients felt more positive as they were able to do more and this may have alleviated some of their anxiety.



It is important to recognize that the majority of women reported great benefit from the opportunity to have their pain ‘‘validated.’’ This has great significance, as it identifies an important clinical need. The therapeutic value of ‘‘offloading’’ pain problems to an experienced health care professional with an interest in pain, the time to discuss matters fully, and the skill to recommend treatment options has been recognized and has been reported with strong emphasis.34 The authors believe that health care professionals with knowledge of oncology and pain are ideally suited to such a therapeutic intervention, but also recognize that the management of such patients can be time-consuming and emotionally demanding. This level of therapeutic involvement may not be possible in many nonspecialist centers. Previous research has shown that interference and worst pain scores are positively correlated.29,30 All machines resulted in an improvement in scores from baseline. Reductions in pain interference meant that patients were more able to perform activities of daily living without difficulty while using the machines. This may have a direct effect on improving quality of life. Although no clinically significant improvements in arm mobility were found, it is important to recognize that arm morbidity was related to other factors, such as fibrosis from surgery and radiotherapy. Not all women had received physiotherapy post-treatment for breast cancer and many were concerned about losing functional ability. This suggests a clear need for physiotherapy review to support physical and psychosocial needs, as suggested by previous authors.4,35 Generally, it appears that patients found all machines easy to use and very few reported difficulties with electrode placement. The help of friends, family or carers was sometimes necessary. On the whole, electrode placement was found to be satisfactory. Although the majority of patients (n ¼ 26, 63%) chose to continue with their preferred intervention and most of them chose TENS (n ¼ 15, 58%), it is important to recognize the six patients who chose the placebo as their preferred treatment, as the power and significance of placebo treatments are well documented.36,37 The longterm follow-up data, however, indicated that

417

in two patients, the beneficial effects of placebo machines lasted for one year after the trial. This is a surprising finding and the authors are not aware of any other studies, which have investigated long-term effects of placebo electrical stimulation. There are several acknowledged limitations to this study. Although blinding procedures were in place, assessments were not blinded and the assessor knew when a TENS machine was supplied. Both of these factors could have added bias to the results. Low patient numbers reduced the statistical power of the study and subjects were a heterogeneous group, which is a common problem with pain research and can make interpretation difficult. It was impossible to guarantee compliance with interventions and future work should use devices with built-in monitoring of usage time. A criticism could be that treatment was not standardized, but the authors believe that allowing patients to use ‘‘trial and error’’ and dose titration is a more sensible approach, as it mimics accepted clinical practice. Finally, follow-up assessments may have been more informative if done in person as opposed to over the telephone, although this would have been time-consuming. Overall, results from this study indicate that electrical stimulation is well tolerated in women with chronic pain related to breast cancer treatment and warrants further study. The majority of women improved as a result of the trial. One interpretation of our results could be that the methods of real stimulation were no better than placebo. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that TENS is more effective than TSE or placebo although the majority of patients chose to continue with this device. The reason for improvements remains unclear, but the most obvious possibilities are psychophysical improvements due to the personal interaction or a placebo response. There are some potentially important implications for clinical practice. The multidisciplinary team has an important role in the management of chronic pain associated with breast cancer treatments. The importance of their involvement with breast cancer patients at the immediate and later postoperative/postradiotherapy stage must be recognized. It seems important to educate patients about movement and exercise and pain management

418

Robb et al.


soon after breast cancer treatment to minimize the development of chronic problems and the need for later interventions.

12. Syrjala KL, Chapko ME. Evidence for a biopsychosocial model of cancer treatment-related pain. Pain 1995;61:69e79.

Acknowledgments

13. Robb K, Williams JE, Duvivier V, Newman D. A pain management programme for chronic cancer-treatment-related pain: a preliminary study. J Pain 2006;7(2):82e90.

The authors thank Mr. Roger A’Hern and Ms. Caoimhe O’Sullivan for their excellent support with statistical analysis.

References 1. The management of chronic pain in patients with breast cancer. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. CMAJ 1998;10(158 Suppl 3):S71eS81.

14. Khadilkar A, Milne S, Brosseau L, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;20(3). CD003008. 15. Brosseau L, Yonge KA, Robinson V, Marchand S, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the hand. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003; Issue 2. 16. Proctor ML, Smith CA, Farquhar CM, Stones RW. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and acupuncture for primary dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;1. CD002123.

2. Jung BF, Ahrendt GM, Oaklander AL, Dworkin RH. Neuropathic pain following breast cancer surgery: a proposed classification and research update. Pain 2003;104:1e13.

17. Osiri M, Welch V, Brosseau L, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;4. CD002823.

3. Carl UM, Feldmeier JJ, Schmitt G, Hartmann K. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late sequelae in women receiving radiation after breast-conserving surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49(4): 1029e1031.

18. Carroll D, Moore RA, McQuay HJ, Fairman F, Trame`r M, Leijon G. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;3. CD003222.

4. Maher Committee. Management of adverse effects following breast radiotherapy. London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 1997. 5. Tasmuth T, von Smitten K, Kalso E. Pain and other symptoms during the first year after radical and conservative surgery for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;74:2024e2031. 6. Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J, Dobke MK. Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 1996;66:195e205. 7. Stevens PE, Dibble SL, Miaskowski C. Prevalence, characteristics and impact of post mastectomy pain syndrome: an investigation of women’s experiences. Pain Med J Club J 1995;1(3):129e133. 8. Tasmuth T, von Smitten K, Hietanen P, Kataja M, Kalso E. Pain and other symptoms after different treatment modalities for breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1995;6:453e459. 9. Carpenter JS, Sloan P, Andrykowski MA, et al. Risk factors for pain after mastectomy/lumpectomy. Cancer Pract 1999;7(2):66e70. 10. Kalso E, Tasmuth T, Neuvonen PJ. Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment for breast cancer. Pain 1995;64:293e302. 11. Turk DC, Sist TC, Okifuji A, et al. Adaptation to metastatic cancer pain, regional/local cancer pain and non-cancer pain: role of psychological and behavioral factors. Pain 1998;74:247e256.

19. Bjordal JM, Johnson MI, Ljunggreen AE. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) can reduce postoperative analgesic consumption. A meta-analysis with assessment of optimal treatment parameters for postoperative pain. Eur J Pain 2003;181e188. 20. Johnson MI. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and TENS-like devices: do they provide pain relief? Pain Rev 2001;8:121e158. 21. Reeve J, Menon D, Corabian P. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: a technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12(2):299e324. 22. Pan CX, Morrison RS, Ness J, Fugh-Berman A, Leipzig RM. Complementary and alternative medicine in the management of pain, dyspnea, and nausea and vomiting near the end of life: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000;20(5):374e387. 23. Macdonald AJR, Coates TW. The discovery of transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia and its relief of chronic pain. Physiotherapy 1995;81(11): 653e661. 24. Simpson KH, Ward J. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study of the use of transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia in patients with pain from chronic critical limb ischemia. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;28(5):511e516. 25. Serlin C, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or



severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 1995;61:277e284. 26. Daut RL, Cleeland CS. The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer. Cancer 1982;50:1913e1918. 27. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67:361e370.

419

32. Hanson RW, Gerber KE. Coping with chronic pain: A guide to patient self-management. London: Guildford Press, 1990. 33. Barlow DH. Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. New York: Guildford Press, 1988.

28. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.

34. Howell SL. Natural/alternative healthcare practices used by women with chronic pain: findings from a grounded theory research study. Nurse Pract Forum 1994;5(2):98e105.

29. Twycross R, Harcourt J, Bergl S. A survey of pain in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 1996;12(5):273e282.

35. Cooper J. Occupational therapy intervention with radiation-induced brachial plexopathy. Eur J Cancer Care 1998;7:88e92.

30. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994;23(2):129e138.

36. Turner JA, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, Von Korff M, Fordyce WE. The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA 1994;271(20): 1609e1614.

31. Feine JS, Lavigne GJ, Dao TTT, Mroin C, Lund JP. Memories of chronic pain and perceptions of relief. Pain 1998;77:137e141.

37. Richardson PH. Placebo effects in pain management. Pain Rev 1994;1:15e32.