Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-invasive pain therapy with few adverse events (AEs) reporting. Despite updated CONSORT Harms 2022 standards, no study has evaluated AE documentation quality using it in TENS research.
Objectives
This meta-epidemiological study aimed to (1) assess the safety profile of TENS, (2) evaluate the quality of AE reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (3) identify factors associated with reporting quality, and (4) examine changes in reporting practices following the publication of the CONSORT Harms 2022 guideline.
Methods
We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library for RCTs reporting TENS-related adverse events. Quality was assessed using the CONSORT Harms 2022 checklist. Mann–Whitney U test was used to investigate whether there was a significant difference between the reporting quality of AE before and after the publication of the checklist. Multivariable linear regression identified factors associated with overall CONSORT score (OCS) and AE documentation quality.
Results
Seventy four studies were included with a mean AE reporting compliance of 64.2%. Higher OCS (p < 0.001), larger sample size (p < 0.05), governmental funding (p < 0.05), and diverse funding sources (p < 0.05) were significantly associated with better AE reporting quality. Studies published after the release of the CONSORT Harms 2022 guideline had significantly higher reporting scores than those published earlier (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
The CONSORT Harms 2022 guideline has had a measurable impact on AE reporting quality in TENS trials. The observed frequency of AEs underscores the need for robust safety monitoring protocols in this therapy.
AkutaySYüceler KaçmazHCeyhanÖ. The healing power of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: a systematic review on its effects after breast surgery. Support Care Cancer2025; 33: 90.
3.
JohnsonMIBjordalJM. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of painful conditions: focus on neuropathic pain. Expert Rev Neurother2011; 11: 735–753.
4.
PatelPGreenMTramJ, et al.Latest advancements in transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and electronic muscle stimulation (EMS): revisiting an established therapy with new possibilities. J Pain Res2025; 18: 137–153.
5.
Harmonisation ICo. Clinical safety data management: Definitions and standards for expedited reporting (ICH E2A). Report no. CPMP/ICH/377/95. European Medicines Evaluation Agency, 1995.
6.
AsgariZTavoliZHosseiniR, et al.A comparative study between transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and fentanyl to relieve shoulder pain during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized clinical trail. Pain Res Manag2018; 2018: 1–7.
7.
CamiloFMBossiniPSDriussoP, et al.The effects of electrode placement on analgesia using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for primary dysmenorrhea: a single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Cureus2023; 15: e39326.
8.
OpolkaYSundbergCJuthbergR, et al.Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation integrated into pants for the relief of postoperative pain in hip surgery patients: a randomized trial. Pain Res Manag2024; 2024: 6866549.
CaiMMZhangJ. Effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical stimulation combined with artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: a randomized controlled trial. Exp Ther Med2020; 20: 175.
11.
Casal-BeloyIGarcía-NovoaMAGonzálezMG, et al.Transcutaneous sacral electrical stimulation versus oxibutynin for the treatment of overactive bladder in children. J Pediatr Urol2021; 17: 644.e1–644.e10. Journal article.
12.
LeroiAMSiproudhisLEtienneyI, et al.Transcutaneous electrical tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of fecal incontinence: a randomized trial (CONSORT 1a). Am J Gastroenterol2012; 107: 1888–1896.
13.
IoannidisJP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med2005; 2: e124.
14.
HicksEPKluemperGT. Heuristic reasoning and cognitive biases: are they hindrances to judgments and decision making in orthodontics?Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2011; 139: 297–304.
15.
ArmstrongBADutescuIATungA, et al.Cognitive biases in surgery: systematic review. Br J Surg2023; 110: 645–654.
16.
ErkinYHanciVOzduranE. Evaluation of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos as a source of information for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. PeerJ2023; 11: e15412.
17.
OzduranEHanciVJNA. YouTube as a source of information about stroke rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neurol Asia2023; 28: 907–915.
18.
OzduranEErkinYHanciV, et al.Evaluation of the readability of turkish internet based patient education materials related to “low back pain.”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi2022; 36: 135–150.
19.
OzduranEAkkocIBüyükçobanS, et al.Readability, reliability and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT, gemini, and perplexity for the most frequently asked questions about pain. Medicine (Baltimore)2025; 104: e41780.
20.
ÖzduranEHancıVSciencesCH. Evaluation of the 100 Most Cited Articles on Behcet’s Disease: a bibliometric analysis. J Basic Clin Health Sci2022; 6: 247–259.
21.
BeggCChoMEastwoodS, et al.Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Jama1996; 276: 637–639.
22.
MoherDSchulzKFAltmanD. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Jama2001; 285: 1987–1991.
23.
HopewellSClarkeMMoherD, et al.CONSORT For reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2008; 5: 20.
24.
MoherDHopewellSSchulzKF, et al.CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg2012; 10: 28–55.
25.
IoannidisJPEvansSJGøtzschePC, et al.Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med2004; 141: 781–788.
26.
JunqueiraDRZorzelaLGolderS, et al.CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomised trials. Br Med J2023; 381: e073725.
27.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherD. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Br Med J2010; 340: c332.
28.
WangYChenCDuW, et al.Adverse event reporting quality in cancer clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a systematic review. Front Immunol2022; 13: 874829.
29.
BeytoutQAfachSGuelimiR, et al.Quality of reporting and concordance between sources of adverse events in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a cross-sectional study of RCTs from a cochrane systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol2024; 173: 111406.
30.
ChengLZhengYWengY, et al.Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders: reporting quality and spin. J Oral Rehabil2024; 2024: 2278–2288.
31.
SollaciLBPereiraMG. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc2004; 92: 364–367. PMID: 15243643.
32.
WangLZhangJGuoC, et al.The efficacy and safety of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a double blinded randomized clinical trial. Brain Stimul2022; 15: 1405–1414.
33.
de SèzeMRaibautPGallienP, et al.Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation for treatment of the overactive bladder syndrome in multiple sclerosis: results of a multicenter prospective study. Neurourol Urodyn2011; 30: 306–311.
34.
PéronJMailletDGanHK, et al.Adherence to CONSORT adverse event reporting guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol2013; 31: 3957–3963.
35.
GuoLMillerSZhouW, et al.Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: a systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev2025; 21: e70014.
36.
WilliamsMRMcKeownAPressmanZ, et al.Adverse event reporting in clinical trials of intravenous and invasive pain treatments: an ACTTION. Systematic review. J Pain2016; 17: 1137–1149.
