Talk:Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

[https:optimizehealth365.com]

Medical Uses --> Pain section

This section talks about studies that show TENS to be effective or not, but the sentences discussing these studies are not specific as to whether these studies were evaluating TENS' ability RELIEVE pain temporarily (e.g., pain relief for a short period of time--hours/days) or ELIMINATE pain altogether forever (e.g., no more chronic low back pain forever... necessitating a longitudinal study). It would be helpful if the author could provide a bit more about the study goals and methodology to make this point clear. Otherwise the summary of studies is really too general, too superficial to make any assessment of the efficacy of TENS. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.54.8.119 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

NYT

This is an interesting aspect of TENS history that might merit inclusion in the Wikipedia article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0CE5D8123BF935A1575BC0A967948260

Citations needed

Please insert citations, there are many medical quotations but no citations to verifiable sources. You may consider establishing some footnotes instead of inline citations. Jenny^Len 22:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The IEEE references an article here that mentions the Scribonius Largus connection: IEEE abstract of The retrospectroscope: medical electricity. I. Electrostatics JCDarrow (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Safety section has a meta-comment that: "This section contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train.". In my opinion, this can easily be resolved by stating that the FDA suggests that the following warnings be placed with devices that are sold, and then referring to the appropriate FDA docs. [1]. This is the "Labeling" section of the FDA document titled: "Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator for Pain Relief", which seems to be the latest version of this document that I can find using Google. I have not managed to find a document beyond the "Draft Guidance" version. Also, in my experience, actual user manuals from the vendors contain the languaging that is recommended by this FDA "Draft Guidance". For example, see [2].

In other words, instead of saying "TENS electrodes should never be placed:", the article can say that "the FDA suggests that TENS units contain warning that TENS electrodes should never be placed: ...". This is not "factual" rather than "advice or training". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideality (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tone

I've put a "tone" tag on the section labelled "Safety". Whilst I appreciate the intent, the tone is suggestive of advocacy--it instructs the reader on the use of the equipment, it warns of possible risks, and so on. As an encyclopedia we may want to present some or all of that information but not in this way. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully better like this; I had thought there was a template for the medical disclaimer, but I didn't find it yet... --Firien ^{need help?} 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Uses

TENS is often used by men for sexual stimulation. Does this use need to be at least pointed to here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.167.219 (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was such a reference, removed by User:YOW2PBI on 4 April. I've replaced it 13 July 2008. It was removed again on 20 September by User:Ksluka, I've replaced it again 8 October 2008. This is a very common usage, and should be left in the article. Metkat (talk) 01:44,

Removed again as uncited use by User:Anthonyhcole on 28 October. I've replaced it 1 November 2010, and added a cite. Metkat —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

From the preceding, mention of sexual stimulation obviously comes and goes like the tide. It's very odd that this article (currently) contains no such reference. Tempted to add it back but not keen to get into an edit war. Tesspub (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And this is how we have wikidecay 47.221.236.73 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Clinicians are people too

The phrasing of paragraph three under "Uses" seems to imply that they are not. I'm unsure how to correct this, as I don't know what the writer meant to say or where they got their information. LSASM (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hilariously bad article

I hope people take no offense, but this article made me chuckle a few times. Compare it with the corresponding chapter in on the two somewhat mainstream electrotherapy books [3] [4]. Probably the most damning issue from a medical perspective is that this article doesn't even mention the lack of efficacy in most metaanalyses (starting on p. 277 in Tim Watson's book, and going for a a couple of dozen pages!) Also, the purported theories of how TENS works are presented as a sure thing here. Even the distinction between TENS and AL-TENS is lacking. The safety section seems to have some "improvements" over the usual stuff mentioned in those books. Compare with the similarly terse exclusion rules in [5] (the other books have more detailed discussions) Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tijfo098 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you think you could do better? Huh? Do you? Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll work on it a bit. Already done a little referencing, but I don't have a lot free of time, even on weekends. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Apologies for being a little bit belligerent, but your first sentence and section title were a little bit offensive. (Not to me personally; I haven't contributed to this article.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree - I have tagged with weaknesses as I see them, and broken into sections (and other recommendations as per my edit summaries). I strongly urge separate sections for efficacy and usage to clarify. Widefox (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This really is a hilariously bad article. The mundane truth is that TENS is a simple means of acute pain relief. Does it have any therapeutic value? I don't know. My uninformed guess not much. But as a means of acute musculoskeletal pain relief it is very effective in a massage-like way. It seems like this article could capture that without looking like it's a cratered no-man's land of edit wars. Joseph N Hall (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fact: I suffer from lower back disk problems. When my back would go out, I would be laid up for two weeks. About 20 years ago, I was introduced to a Tens unit by a friend. It has been the answer for me in dealing with this issue. If the electrodes are placed on the proper spots on my back, (which took a while to figure how to use effectively), I am immediately relieved of pain while it is running, and after a day and the cost of one 9 volt battery, I am back to normal. It is the greatest Lower back pain reliever medical science has come up with to date. PERIOD! What's hilarious to me, is that there is any dispute about it at all. Pocketthis (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention in the History section of the "Electreat", an early 20th century um, I'll call it electroquackery device - because the user manual claims it cures just about every malady known to medicine. It is briefly mentioned and noted to not be portable. Well, I have one, and can confirm that as a roughly 12 inch long wand, with fully contained battery power supply, that it is really very portable. Maybe if I remember later I'll come back and drop a citation and fix this, but I thought I'd mention it here in case I forget and some poor sod later takes it upon themselves to thouroughly untrashify this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.212.73 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Penis, clitoris etc.

Someone kept adding that exception to the safety section, but I didn't find support for it in the medical literature. On the contrary, Robertson p.160 says:

“ Note that the following are not contraindications:
[...]
Current through pelvis - There is no known risk to the bladder or genitalia from passing current through the pelvis using the arrangement described: place the indifferent electrode (dispersive) on the unaffected hamstrings and the active electrode over the femoral nerve on the contralateral leg. ”

While this is not a blanket endorsement for sexual use, probably no adverse effects have been recorded. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How does it work?

I came to this article hoping to find technical information on how TENS machines work, in particular their mysterious (to me) ability to run two circuits through the same body. Any engineers out there who can fill in this missing information? Tesspub (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not qualified to add to the article on the matter, but it's straight forward enough as to why they can do that. Think of it this way: If you try to power something by connecting it to the positive of one battery and the negative of another, no juice will flow unless you complete the circuit by connecting the batteries as well. For current to flow there has to be a complete circuit, so all the tens unit has to do is keep the two voltage supply circuits electrically isolated from each other. The design used to do this I don't know... might be two tiny isolation transformers for all I know. Nazzy (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Image model numbers/manufacturers?

I noticed the image for the (American Imex) unit posted at right near top of article is not citing which unit it is. Normally, you mention the subject in metadata of a photo alongside photographer and time photo was taken? As an example, that unit resembles the AI-86 but is probably one of the newer models. 47.221.236.73 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit by IP

Hi @Daveplot: thanks for helping flag the recent edit by an IP editor (edit). I personally found many of their edits improve the article, including the removal of the primary research study (an RCT) as per WP:MEDRS. I do think that aat least one of their suggestions should be brought to the talk page first before it is added to the article, specifically the sentence where they added that TENS is a pseudoscience. I have no idea if this is correct or not, but likely some discussion by Wikipedians and volunteers more familiar with CAM and which therapies are considered pseudoscience or not and citations to back this up is warranted. Would you agree to me reverting your revert and then remove the sentence that the editor added on pseudoscience and bringing it back here to the talk page? Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Any of those edits need references. That's why I undid them. If you wanted to readd the sentence about it being pseudoscience, it would need a reference stating such. David (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Device specs

The article would be greatly enhanced by providing more specifics about device functionality -- e.g. typical voltages/currents, whether devices maintain constant/selectable current or voltage, safety limitations on consumer equipment, etc., etc. I know some of these are hard to quantify, because we're talking about the human body as the load, with many variations in resistance depending on electrode and placement, and Ohm's law dictates that if voltage is a set value, the current depends on the resistance of the load, and vice versa. So a TENS unit that delivers 50v on an open circuit might only give 5v into electrodes on someone's skin, especially if the design is (as I suspect) to maintain a predefined current at any particular setting of the controls.

Manufacturers tend to be a bit coy about providing these kinds of specs for TENS units, no doubt because the measurements are hard to standardize. A few consumer units I have seen do have labels with rudimentary specs, for example "Maximum output 60v at 1000Ω" or "Current 20-100 ma at 500Ω". But what is the resistance between two skin electrodes? Is it of the order of 500-1000Ω, or is it very different? I realize it can vary a lot depending on several factors, but some average or common ranges would be informative.

Possibly this information is available in some other article, but if so, it should be linked here. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)