4.2 Article

Comparison of the effect of baclofen and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 636-641

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/1743132813Y.0000000200

关键词

Baclofen; Efficacy; Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; Muscle spasticity; Modified Ashworth scale; Multiple sclerosis; Clinical trial

资金

  1. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of baclofen and self-applied transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the treatment of spasticity in the lower extremities in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted from September 2010 to June 2011. Fifty-two patients with MS presenting muscle spasm in the leg at 20-50 years of age were randomly allocated to receive a four-week treatment course of either baclofen (10 mg twice daily, increasing over three weeks to 25 mg) or self-applied TENS. Response to treatment was assessed at four weeks after commencement of the intervention by modified Ashworth scale (MAS). Results: Spasticity decreased in both groups. Of the 26 people treated with TENS, the mean (standard deviation (SD)) MAS decreased from 1.77 (0.29) at baseline to 0.73 (0.70) at the four-week follow-up (P, 0.001). Correspondingly, in the 26 people treated with baclofen, the mean (SD) MAS decreased from 1.73 (0.38) to 1.15 (0.63) (P < 0.001). The mean difference in MAS score at the four-week follow-up was significantly lower in the TENS group than the baclofen group (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI, -0.79, -0.05; P < 0.05). Discussion: This study demonstrates that both baclofen and TENS can be effective in reducing MS-related spasticity. The mean MAS score was significantly lower in the TENS group. However given the side-effect profile of baclofen, TENS may have some benefits over baclofen.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据