Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the efficacy of scrambler therapy (ST) for the management of chronic pain, those findings remain inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of ST for the management of chronic pain.
METHODS: A meta-analysis of RCTs.
METHODS: We searched core databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for RCTs in October 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pain reduction were calculated using a random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 348 studies, a total of 7 RCTs (n = 287 patients) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. Overall, ST marginally decreased pain scores after the end of the treatment compared with the control group, with substantial heterogeneity (SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.03; I2 = 89.5%, n = 7). A subgroup meta-analysis found that the use of ST significantly reduced analgesic consumption compared to the control group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.14; I2 = 0.0%; n = 2). However, no significant efficacy was observed in the subgroup meta-analyses by methodological quality, type of diseases causing pain, and follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS: The included trials have a small sample size and low methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: ST seems to be effective in the management of patients with chronic pain. However, further, large RCTs are warranted to confirm our findings.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of ST for the management of chronic pain.
METHODS: A meta-analysis of RCTs.
METHODS: We searched core databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for RCTs in October 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pain reduction were calculated using a random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 348 studies, a total of 7 RCTs (n = 287 patients) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. Overall, ST marginally decreased pain scores after the end of the treatment compared with the control group, with substantial heterogeneity (SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.03; I2 = 89.5%, n = 7). A subgroup meta-analysis found that the use of ST significantly reduced analgesic consumption compared to the control group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.14; I2 = 0.0%; n = 2). However, no significant efficacy was observed in the subgroup meta-analyses by methodological quality, type of diseases causing pain, and follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS: The included trials have a small sample size and low methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: ST seems to be effective in the management of patients with chronic pain. However, further, large RCTs are warranted to confirm our findings.
摘要：
背景：尽管一些随机对照试验（RCT）报道了加扰器疗法（ST）治疗慢性疼痛的疗效，这些发现仍然不一致。
目的：本荟萃分析旨在探讨ST治疗慢性疼痛的疗效。
方法：随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
方法：我们搜索了包括PubMed、EMBASE,和2021年10月的科克伦RCT图书馆。使用随机效应模型荟萃分析计算疼痛减轻的标准化平均差（SMD）和95％置信区间（CI）。
结果：在348项研究中，共有7个符合纳入标准的RCT(n=287例)被纳入最终分析.总的来说,与对照组相比，治疗结束后ST疼痛评分略有下降，具有实质性异质性(SMD，-0.85；95%CI，-1.66至-0.03；I2=89.5%，n=7)。一项亚组荟萃分析发现，与对照组相比，使用ST可显着降低镇痛消耗量（SMD，-0.54；95%CI，-0.93至-0.14；I2=0.0%；n=2）。然而,在方法学质量的亚组荟萃分析中没有观察到显著的疗效，引起疼痛的疾病类型，和随访期。
结论：纳入的试验样本量小，方法学质量低。
结论：ST在慢性疼痛患者的治疗中似乎是有效的。然而,进一步,有必要通过大型随机对照试验来证实我们的发现.
目的：本荟萃分析旨在探讨ST治疗慢性疼痛的疗效。
方法：随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
方法：我们搜索了包括PubMed、EMBASE,和2021年10月的科克伦RCT图书馆。使用随机效应模型荟萃分析计算疼痛减轻的标准化平均差（SMD）和95％置信区间（CI）。
结果：在348项研究中，共有7个符合纳入标准的RCT(n=287例)被纳入最终分析.总的来说,与对照组相比，治疗结束后ST疼痛评分略有下降，具有实质性异质性(SMD，-0.85；95%CI，-1.66至-0.03；I2=89.5%，n=7)。一项亚组荟萃分析发现，与对照组相比，使用ST可显着降低镇痛消耗量（SMD，-0.54；95%CI，-0.93至-0.14；I2=0.0%；n=2）。然而,在方法学质量的亚组荟萃分析中没有观察到显著的疗效，引起疼痛的疾病类型，和随访期。
结论：纳入的试验样本量小，方法学质量低。
结论：ST在慢性疼痛患者的治疗中似乎是有效的。然而,进一步,有必要通过大型随机对照试验来证实我们的发现.
