Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke shoulder pain: A systematic Cochrane review

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Christopher PriceORCiD, Dr Anand Pandyan


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Background. Shoulder pain after stroke is common and disabling. The optimal management is uncertain, but electrical stimulation (ES) is often used to treat and prevent pain. Objectives. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of any form of surface ES in the prevention and/or treatment of pain around the shoulder at any time after stroke. Search strategy. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Review Group trials register and undertook further searches of Medline, Embase and CINAHL. Contact was established with equipment manufacturers and centres that have published on the topic of ES. Selection criteria. We considered all randomized trials that assessed any surface ES technique (functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or other), applied at any time since stroke for the purpose of prevention or treatment of shoulder pain. Data collection and analysis. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Main results. Four trials (a total of 170 subjects) fitted the inclusion criteria. Study design and ES technique varied considerably, often precluding the combination of studies. Population numbers were small. There was no significant change in pain incidence (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% CI 0.19-2.14) or change in pain intensity (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.13; 95% Cl -1.0-1.25) after ES treatment compared with control. There was a significant treatment effect in favour of ES for improvement in pain-free range of passive humeral lateral rotation (weighted mean difference (WMD) 9.17; 95% Cl 1.43-16.91). In these studies ES reduced the severity of glenohumeral subluxation (SMD -1.13; 95% Cl -1.66 to -0.60), but there was no significant effect on upper limb motor recovery (SMD 0.24; 95% Cl -0.14-0.62) or upper limb spasticity (WMD 0.05; 95% Cl -0.28-0.37). There did not appear to be any negative effects of electrical stimulation at the shoulder.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Price CIM, Pandyan AD

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Clinical Rehabilitation

Year: 2001

Volume: 15

Issue: 1

Pages: 5-19

ISSN (print): 0269-2155

ISSN (electronic): 1477-0873

Publisher: Sage


DOI: 10.1191/026921501670667822

PubMed id: 11237161


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric