Şahin, NilayAlbayrak, İlknurUğurlu, Hatice2020-03-262020-03-2620111058-24521540-7012https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10582452.2010.538825https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/26355The aim of this study is to compare the efficacies of different therapeutic transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] types and placebo TENS on pain syndrome in cervical myofascial pain syndrome [MPS] and to determine the superior method. Patients recruited in the study were randomized into four groups. Group 1 was treated with a conventional TENS with a frequency of 100 Hz, 40 mu s duration, low amplitude; Group 2 with an acupuncture-like TENS with a frequency of 4 Hz, 250 mu s duration, high amplitude; Group 3 with burst TENS with high [100 Hz] and low [2 Hz] frequency, 40 mu s and high amplitude. Group 4 was treated with an electrical stimulation until the patient felt it. Then the electrical current was interrupted, but the patient was told the current was proceeding and he/she did not feel it any more since he/she had gotten used to it. All groups were treated with a total of 10 therapies with 30-minute sessions three times a week. Patients were assessed with a visual analog scale and the bodily pain subscale of the Short Form Health Survey-36 scale before and after treatment. Eighty patients participated in the study. Before and after treatment, intra-groups and inter-groups evaluations of all groups showed that there was no significant progression in both scales [P > 0.05]. In conclusion, it was observed that none of the TENS types was superior to another or placebo. As a result of this outcome, it was thought that TENS alone has no role in cervical MPS therapy.en10.3109/10582452.2010.538825info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessMyofascial pain syndrometreatmenttranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationcervical painphysical modalityArticle1911823N/AWOS:000286819500004Q4