A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine in Sport and Companion Animals: Electrotherapy.
Authors: Hyytiäinen Heli K, Boström Anna, Asplund Kjell, Bergh Anna
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Electrotherapy in Veterinary Practice: A Evidence-Based Reality Check Electrotherapy modalities—from pulsed electromagnetic field therapy to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation—are widely employed across equine and small animal practice, yet their clinical efficacy remains poorly substantiated. A comprehensive systematic review following Cochrane guidelines examined 41 studies published between 1980 and 2020 across three major databases, identifying research on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (13 papers), neural electrical muscle stimulation (7), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (5), static magnets, interference current, and several other modalities. Despite the breadth of applications, the evidence base proved problematic: half of the included papers carried high risk of bias, individual modalities were represented by only 3.7 papers on average, and marked heterogeneity in treatment parameters and clinical indications prevented meaningful comparison or confident clinical recommendations for horses, dogs, or cats. Practitioners should approach electrotherapy claims cautiously until higher-quality, standardised research emerges; whilst some modalities (particularly PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS) showed suggestive results warranting further investigation, current evidence is insufficient to confidently support their use for any specific clinical indication in equine or companion animal medicine.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Do not rely on current evidence to justify electrotherapy use in equine, canine, or feline practice—the research base is too weak and biased to support clinical decision-making
- •If considering electrotherapy, be transparent with clients that evidence is insufficient and treatment remains experimental; document outcomes carefully to contribute to future evidence building
- •Prioritize high-quality trials on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS if pursuing electrotherapy research, as preliminary results suggest these warrant further investigation
Key Findings
- •Of 5,385 references identified, only 41 articles met inclusion criteria, indicating severely limited literature across all electrotherapy modalities
- •Mean of 3.7 papers per modality with 48.8% assessed as high risk of bias (20/41 articles), undermining evidence quality
- •Current scientific evidence is insufficient to support clinical effects of any electrotherapy modality (PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, static magnets, interference, PENS, bioelectricity, diathermy, or microwave) in horses, dogs, or cats
- •Heterogeneous treatment parameters and indications across studies prevent meaningful comparisons and clinical recommendations