To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. By clicking 'accept' or by using our site you agree to our use of cookies. To view our privacy policy, which tells you more about the cookies we use click the button below. If you do not agree with our privacy policy, please do not use this website and navigate away now.

Privacy Policy Accept Cookies


Tissue Repair

Evidence Of Microcurrent Therapy's Effectiveness In Tissue Repair

A recent review of the published literature identified n=11 studies that were of sufficient quality to merit inclusion (7x RCTs; 2x experimental studies, not controlled; 1x case series and 1x comparative study) [1-11]. A total of 379 patients were involved in these trials with 66% being exposed to Microcurrent Therapy.

Microcurrent Therapy was deemed to be effective in 10 of the 11 publications (91%), employing 96% of all trial participants (n=363). The ineffective trial was reference 6, Ho et al,. (2007). The clinical conditions treated in these 10 studies included, 2x tennis elbow; 2x total knee arthroplasty (post-operative); achilles tendinopathy; groin strain; head/neck fibrosis; inflammation (lab-induced); plantar fasciitis and temporomandibular disorder.

Overall, in relation to clinical healing/repair issues, there is more supportive published evidence than evidence suggesting an ineffective treatment. Adverse events/effects reporting identifies no significant issues or risks. On balance, Microcurrent based therapy has supportive evidence of effectiveness across a wide range of clinical injury and repair presentations. The ‘stimulation' parameters from the effective studies were identified in a dose/response analysis and fell into what is now considered to be an effective range.

Next page: Evidence of microcurrent therapy's effectiveness in pain management



1. Poltawski L, Johnson M, Watson T. Microcurrent therapy in the management of chronic tennis elbow: pilot studies to optimize parameters. Physiother Res Int. 2012;17(3):157-66.
2. Ammar TA. Microcurrent electrical nerve stimulation in tennis elbow. Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy. 2011;16(2):9-15.
3. Chapman-Jones D, Hill D. Novel Microcurrent Treatment is More Effective than Conventional Therapy for Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy: Randomised comparative trial. Physiotherapy. 2002;88(8):471-80.
4. Cho M, Park R, Park S, Cho Y, Cheng G. The Effect of Microcurrent-Inducing Shoes on Fatigue and Pain in Middle-Aged People with Plantar Fascitis. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2007;19(2):165-70.
5. El-Husseini T, El-Kawy S, Shalaby H, El-Sebai M. Microcurrent skin patches for postoperative pain control in total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study. International Orthopaedics. 2007;31(2):229-33.
6. Ho LOL, Kwong WL, Cheing GLY. Effectiveness of microcurrent therapy in the management of lateral epicondylitis: a pilot study. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal. 2007;25:14-20.
7. Kogawa EM, Kato MT, Santos CN, Conti PC. Evaluation of the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and the microelectric neurostimulation (MENS) in the treatment of myogenic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13(3):280-5.
8. Lee JW, Yoon SW, Kim TH, Park SJ. The effects of microcurrents on inflammatory reaction induced by ultraviolet irradiation. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2011;23(4):693-6.
9. Lennox AJ, Shafer JP, Hatcher M, Beil J, Funder SJ. Pilot study of impedance-controlled microcurrent therapy for managing radiation-induced fibrosis in head-and-neck cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(1):23-34.
10. Rockstroh G, Schleicher W, Krummenauer F. Effectiveness of microcurrent therapy as a constituent of post-hospital rehabilitative treatment in patients after total knee alloarthroplasty - a randomized clinical trial. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2010;49(3):173-9.
11. Yuill EA, Pajaczkowski JA, Howitt SD. Conservative care of sports hernias within soccer players: a case series. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16(4):540-8.