<p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TECAR (capacitive and resistive electric transfer) therapy for managing pain in various sports-related musculoskeletal pathologies. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with comprehensive database searches conducted in January 2024. Out of 151 identified studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria for final analysis, encompassing a total of 399 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, with scores ranging from 4 to 8, indicating fair to good quality. The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in pain outcomes, with a mean difference (MD) of − 2.26 (95% CI − 3.24 to − 1.27, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001) favoring TECAR therapy. Short-term improvements showed an MD of − 1.57 (95% CI − 3.10 to − 0.03), while medium-term results demonstrated greater reductions in pain, with an MD of − 2.64 (95% CI − 3.13 to − 2.15). Heterogeneity among studies ranged from moderate (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 38%) to high (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 98%), highlighting variability in study designs. The findings support TECAR therapy as an effective modality for pain management in athletes. However, the variability in study quality suggests a need for further high-quality research to standardize treatment protocols and optimize outcomes.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness of TECAR Therapy for Managing Pain in Sports-Related Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

  • Elvis Kudich,
  • Vindiš Miha,
  • Žiga Kozinc

摘要

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TECAR (capacitive and resistive electric transfer) therapy for managing pain in various sports-related musculoskeletal pathologies. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with comprehensive database searches conducted in January 2024. Out of 151 identified studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria for final analysis, encompassing a total of 399 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, with scores ranging from 4 to 8, indicating fair to good quality. The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in pain outcomes, with a mean difference (MD) of − 2.26 (95% CI − 3.24 to − 1.27, p < 0.00001) favoring TECAR therapy. Short-term improvements showed an MD of − 1.57 (95% CI − 3.10 to − 0.03), while medium-term results demonstrated greater reductions in pain, with an MD of − 2.64 (95% CI − 3.13 to − 2.15). Heterogeneity among studies ranged from moderate (I2 = 38%) to high (I2 = 98%), highlighting variability in study designs. The findings support TECAR therapy as an effective modality for pain management in athletes. However, the variability in study quality suggests a need for further high-quality research to standardize treatment protocols and optimize outcomes.