OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate repeated applications of cold vs room temperature (placebo control) compress to the repaired primiparous perineum on pain upon movement.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from May 2022 to February 2023. A total of 224 women with a repaired episiotomy or spontaneous second-degree tear sustained at normal delivery were randomized as follows: 113 to frozen gel pack and 111 to room temperature gel pack, as wound compress. The compress was applied to the perineal repair site at 3 timepoints: immediately after repair, and at 4 and 8 hours after delivery, for 20 minutes at each application. The primary outcomes were pain during movement at 12 and 24 hours after delivery, scored using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. The secondary outcomes include duration of hospital stay; analgesic consumption; recovery and functional metrics of reestablishing flatus, mobilization, and urination, breastfeeding; maternal satisfaction with the allocated compress; and after hospital discharge for up to 6 weeks after birth through telephone interview, analgesic consumption, perineal pain, resumption of vaginal sex, and women's perception of perineal wound healing.

RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) of pain at movement scores were 4 (4-5) vs 5 (4-5) (P=.018) at 12 hours and 2 (1-3) vs 2 (2-3) (P=.173) at 24 hours after birth for cold vs room temperature compress, respectively. Maternal satisfaction scores were 8 (7-9) vs 7 (6-8) (P=.119), oral analgesic for perineal pain while at the postnatal ward was taken by 94 of 113 (83.2%) vs 85 of 109 (78.0%) (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.21), and time to the first satisfactory breastfeeding episode was 11.6 (7.9-15.5) vs 13.0 (8.0-20.7) hours (P=.303) for cold vs room temperature compress, respectively. At 2 weeks telephone follow-up, analgesic intake and perineal pain were not different. At 6 weeks, analgesic intake, perineal pain, resumption of vaginal sex, exclusive breastfeeding, and maternal perception of perineal healing were not different.