Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Clinical trial: interferential electric stimulation in functional
dyspepsia patients – a prospective randomized study
S. KÖKLÜ*, G. KÖKLÜ, E. Ö ZGÜÇLÜ, G. U. KAYANI, E. AKBAL* & Z. HASÇELIK
*Department of Gastroenterology,
Ankara Education and Research
Hospital, Ankara, Turkey;
Department of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe
University School of Medicine,
Ankara, Turkey; Department of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
Ankara University School of
Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
Correspondence to:
Dr S. Köklü, Bağlarbas¸ ı mahallesi,
Duman sokak, 55 ⁄ 11, Keçiören,
Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail: gskoklu@yahoo.com
Publication data
Submitted 4 December 2009
First decision date 28 December 2009
Resubmitted 14 January 2010
Accepted 2 February 2010
Epub Accepted Article 5 February
2010
ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04256.x
SUMMARY
Background
There are several studies reporting the beneficial effects of transcutane-
ous electrical stimulation in patients with gastroparesis and chronic
constipation.
Aim
To analyse whether transcutaneous electrical stimulation is an effective
procedure in functional dyspepsia patients.
Methods
Functional dyspepsia patients were randomly placed in vacuum interfer-
ential current (IFC) and placebo groups. Both treatments consisted of 12
sessions administered over 4 weeks. Upper gastrointestinal system
symptoms were documented at the beginning, during and after the
treatment sessions.
Results
Patients in therapy (23 cases) and placebo (21 cases) groups were homo-
geneous with respect to demographic data and upper gastrointestinal
system symptoms. In the therapy group, all symptoms other than early
satiation improved significantly during and after the treatment sessions,
whereas in the placebo group, symptoms including heartburn and vom-
iting did not change significantly. IFC therapy was superior to placebo
with respect to epigastric discomfort, pyrosis, bloating, early satiation
and postprandial fullness during the treatment sessions. One month
after the treatment sessions, vacuum IFC proved to be superior to pla-
cebo with regard to early satiation and heartburn.
Conclusions
Vacuum IFC is a non-invasive and effective therapy for functional dys-
pepsia. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation may represent a new treat-
ment modality for drug-refractory functional dyspepsia patients.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968
961
962 S . K Ö K L Ü et al.
INTRODUCTION
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a highly common and
problematic gastrointestinal disorder. For many suf-
ferers, it presents a lower quality of life as well as
higher costs.1 It is characterized by persistent upper
gastrointestinal complaints for which adequate exam-
ination does not reveal a sufficient explanation
through a structural or specific pathology. As the
exact aetiology of FD remains unclear, curative treat-
ment is not available and current treatment modali-
ties are mainly directed against the predominant
symptoms.
A wide variety of treatments have been used in the
management of FD, including dietary and lifestyle
modifications, antacids, antisecretory agents, prokinet-
ics, antidepressants, behavioural and complementary
and alternative therapies.2 Interferential therapy is a
form of transcutaneous electrical stimulation. Electri-
cal stimulation at the applied site is likely to stimulate
local skin nerve fibres, as well as deeper stimulation
activating afferent and efferent parasympathetic out-
flow to the gastrointestinal tract.3, 4 In clinical prac-
tice, it is used for pain control, bladder overactivity
and chronic treatment-resistant constipation.5–7
Delayed gastric emptying and impaired postprandial
gastric accommodation have been considered the main
mechanisms that contribute to symptom generation in
patients with FD.8 Hence, electrical stimulation of the
upper gastrointestinal system might improve the
motility disorder. Gastric electrical stimulation has
been successfully tried over the last decade as a thera-
peutic option for a variety of gastrointestinal motility
disorders, especially gastroparesis and morbid obes-
ity.4, 8–11 In a recent study, gastric electrical stimula-
tion by a surgical approach has improved symptoms
in gastroparetic patients. McCallum et al. have sug-
gested that improvement was achieved by electrical
stimulation of both afferent and efferent vagal path-
ways.4 In the pertinent literature, there are several
studies reporting the beneficial effects of transcutane-
ous electrical stimulation in patients with gastrointes-
tinal tract dysfunction, including gastroparesis and
chronic constipation.3, 6, 7, 11 To our knowledge,
transcutaneous electrical stimulation has not been
tried in the management of FD before. In the present
study, we aimed to document the efficacy of vacuum
interferential current therapy, a non-invasive proce-
dure for transcutaneous electrical stimulation in FD
patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients with FD were recruited from the out-patient
clinic at the clinic of Gastroenterology, Ankara Educa-
tional and Research Hospital in Ankara from February
2008 through July 2009. Patients with suspected FD
were enrolled in the study for evaluation and treat-
ment. Patients were recruited both from a pool of FD
patients at our unit and from referrals from other phy-
sicians. Standardized work-up for all cases included an
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, abdominal ultraso-
nography and laboratory tests. Functional dyspepsia
was defined as uninvestigated dyspepsia without find-
ings of oesophagitis, peptic ulcer, coeliac disease, or
cancer and no evidence of other structural disease at
endoscopy that was likely to explain the symptoms.
All subjects were categorized into FD according to the
Rome III criteria by the same physician (S.K.). Each
patient had a history of chronic abdominal symptoms
for a long time and had medical treatments (proton
pump inhibitor, H2-receptor antagonists and antacids)
that did not overcome the dyspeptic symptoms. Sub-
jects with concomitant irritable bowel syndrome
symptoms and who refused to participate in the treat-
ment sessions were excluded. Patients with a history
of gastrointestinal or gynaecological surgery, gastroin-
testinal cancer, recent peptic ulcer disease and isolated
or predominant symptoms of gastro-oesophageal
reflux disease were also eliminated. Participants were
prohibited from using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs, antacids, proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor
antagonists and antibiotics until the end of the study.
This was a prospective study and patients were ran-
domized with a systematic random sampling method.
It was decided by the gastroenterologist (S.K.) whether
the patient fulfilled the criteria for randomization.
After informed consent was obtained from them,
patients were randomly assigned to the treatment and
control groups according to the basic random sam-
pling method. Patients in the treatment and control
groups were unaware of their treatment allocation. In
each session, 15 min of vacuum interferential current
therapy (IFC) or sham IFC was applied to the patients.
Interferential current was supplied by the device,
Metron Medical Australia, Vectorpulse (Australia). The
skin of the paravertebral area of the thoracic 10–12 was
cleaned with alcohol and the electrodes were applied in
a quadripolar manner to this area for an intersecting
electrical current to the projection of the stomach
(Figure 1). Electrodes were placed on the skin by suction
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968
ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 C L I N I C A L T R I A L : I N T E R F E R E N T I A L E L E C T R I C S T I M U L A T I O N I N F U N C T I O N A L D Y S P E P S I A 963
Figure 1. Application of vacuum interferential current
therapy.
cups using vacuum. Interferential stimulators delivered
interferential current using four electrodes, with a car-
rier frequency of 4 kHz, an adjustable intensity and a
beat frequency sweep covering 80–150 Hz. The inten-
sity of the stimulator was increased gradually until the
patient reported that a further rise would cause discom-
fort. Individual pulses had a duration of 1 s.
In the control IFC group, bipolar flexible carbon
electrodes were used with the same device. Electrodes
were placed in the same area. Subjects in the control
group did not feel any electrical stimulation or vac-
uum sensation.
For 4 weeks, both the IFC and placebo groups
received 12 · 15 min sessions of real or placebo IFC,
respectively. The procedure was explained before ther-
apy to all patients. In both groups, patients were not
allowed to take any medical treatment. Patients com-
pleted standard questionnaires just before beginning
the therapy sessions, during the treatment and after the
treatment sessions. The questionnaire was given to the
patients by the study physiotherapists and completed
before the treatment. In addition, the questionnaire
included questions on sociodemographic characteristics,
education status and the duration of the patients’ com-
plaints. All patients were asked whether they had upper
gastrointestinal symptoms including epigastric discom-
fort, pyrosis, bloating, early satiation, postprandial full-
ness, belching, gastro-oesophageal reflux, heartburn,
nausea or vomiting before the treatment, at the 2nd
week, just at end of the therapy, and 1 month after
treatment. The questionnaire was administered by study
physiotherapists at face-to-face interviews before and
during treatment sessions and over the telephone
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968
ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1 month after treatment. All vacuum IFC and placebo
treatment sessions were applied by the same physiother-
apist (vacuum IFC by G.K. and placebo by G.U.K).
Hence, each therapist was unaware of the results of the
other treatment group. Symptoms were questioned at
the beginning as present or absent. Later, the patients
were asked whether each symptom improved, remained
the same or increased when compared with the pre-
treatment status.
The primary outcome measures were a self-reported
change in major FD symptoms, including epigastric
discomfort, early satiation and postprandial fullness
during or after treatment sessions. Secondary outcome
measures were to evaluate changes in the remaining
upper gastrointestinal symptoms. All outcome mea-
sures were evaluated at baseline, in the middle of
treatment, at the end of treatment and 1 month after
IFC and placebo treatments.
Data analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0 (IBM,
Chicago, Illinois) for Windows. The continuous vari-
ables were presented as mean  standard deviation or
median (min-max), whereas categorical variables were
presented as percentage. Mann–Whitney tests were
used to determine if there were any significant differ-
ences between groups. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test
were used for categorical comparisons.
Our planned sample size calculated for this study
was about 30 patients for each treatment arm to reach
more than 80% power. As one of the physiotherapists
had moved to another hospital before the end of the
study, we could not reach that number. The detected
power of this study was 73.8%.
We assessed the efficacy of IFC by a per-protocol
analysis (PP). We also gave the results according to an
intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). P < 0.05 was accepted
as statistically significant for the results.
Responders to therapy were identified using Jacobson
and Truax’ criteria for clinically significant change. This
change was determined by calculation of a reliable
change index (RC). This is the difference between pretest
and post-test scores divided by the standard error of the
difference. An RC larger than 1.96 indicates true change
in post-test vs. pretest scores.
RESULTS
Fifty patients were randomized into IFC and placebo
groups. Two and four patients dropped out of the
study because of non-medical reasons just after
beginning the treatment sessions in IFC and placebo
964 S . K Ö K L Ü et al.

groups respectively. There were 44 patients who
completed the therapy sessions (Figure 2). As FD
subgroups, one had epigastric pain syndrome, five
had postprandial distress syndrome and the remain-
ing 19 had overlap in either group. The age-range
was between 19 and 70 years. Vacuum IFC and pla-
cebo groups included 23 and 21 FD patients respec-
tively. Demographic characteristics of either group,
including age, gender, body mass index, smoking
habits, occupation, education level, marital status,
parity and number of admissions to a physician with
FD in the last year were comparable (Table 1). Both
groups had similar upper gastrointestinal system
symptoms frequency (Table 2). Epigastric discom-
fort and bloating were the two most common
complaints.
All symptoms other than heartburn (P = 0.11) and
vomiting (P = 0.20) in the placebo group decreased
significantly at the mid and end of the treatment, and
at the 1st month after treatment when compared with

100 patients

Met rome III criteria for FD

50 patients randomized to 50 patients had concomitant

interference current or placebo IBS or declined to treatment
groups

25 patients 25 patients

Placebo group Interference group

4 unable to complete treatment sessions 2 unable to complete treatment sessions

21 patients completed the sessions 23 patients completed the sessions

21 patients analyzed at the 1st month after treatment 23 patients analyzed at the 1st month after treatment

Figure 2. Patient flow showing the number of patients in the different phases of the study.

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968

ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 C L I N I C A L T R I A L : I N T E R F E R E N T I A L E L E C T R I C S T I M U L A T I O N I N F U N C T I O N A L D Y S P E P S I A 965

Table 1. Demographic data of the patients

Variables Placebo Interference P values

Age (year) 37.1  17.9 39.6  8.0 0.42

Body mass index (kg ⁄ m2) 26.3  5.9 27.7  3.0 0.20
Gender (n, female) 20 22 0,98
Smoking (%) 13.6% 18.2% 0.68
Alcohol 0 0 1
Marital status (% married) 86.4% 90.9% 0.63
Occupation (% housewife) 81.8% 81.8% 1
Education level 77.3% elementary school 68.2% elementary school 0.89
18.2% high school 27.3% high school
4.5% university 4.5% university
Parity 2 (0–5) 2 (0–8) 0.56
*Attendance to a physician 4 (1–20) 2 (1–10) 0.11

* At the last year with the complaint of functional dyspepsia.

 Mann–Whitney U-test.
 Chi Square test.

nausea; 0.01 for belching; 0.03 for heartburn and vom-

Table 2. Frequencies of gastrointestinal symptoms in the
iting. In ITT analysis, all symptoms other than postpran-
patients
dial fullness improved significantly (P values were
Variables Placebo Interference P value <0.01 for epigastric discomfort, pyrosis, bloating, heart-
burn, vomiting and gastro-oesophageal reflux; 0.01 for
Epigastric discomfort (%) 95.2 91.3 0.72 early satiation and nausea, and 0.03 for belching
Pyrosis (%) 71.4 82.6 0.05 (Table 3).
Bloating (%) 100 91.3 0.23
Early satiation (%) 90.4 60.8 0.29
At the 2nd week of therapy, vacuum IFC was superior
Postprandial fullness (%) 90.4 82.6 0.67 to placebo with respect to decreased epigastric discom-
Belching (%) 90.4 69.5 0.70 fort (P = 0.01), bloating (P = 0.01), early satiation
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (%) 71.4 73.9 0.49 (P = 0.01) and pyrosis (P = 0.04). In ITT analysis, bloat-
Heartburn (%) 66.6 57.1 0.53 ing (P = 0.02) and early satiation (P = 0.04) improved
Nausea (%) 76.1 56.5 0.33
significantly in IFC as compared with the placebo group.
Vomiting (%) 14.2 21.7 0.69
Pyrosis, bloating, early satiation and postprandial
fullness decreased more prominently in the vacuum
the pre-treatment status. P values for each symptom IFC group as compared with the placebo group at the
were as follows: <0.01 for epigastric discomfort, pyro- end of treatment sessions (P values were 0.04, < 0.01,
sis, bloating, postprandial fullness and gastro-oesopha- < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). In ITT analysis, bloating
geal reflux; 0.01 for early satiation, belching and and early satiation improved significantly in IFC as
nausea. When ITT analysis was applied, there was a compared with the placebo group (P = 0.02 for both).
significant difference regarding epigastric discomfort At the 1st month after therapy, when vacuum IFC
and gastro-oesophageal reflux (P < 0.01 for both), and placebo groups were compared, IFC was superior
bloating (P = 0.01) and nausea (P = 0.03). Other symp- to placebo with regard to early satiation and heartburn
toms did not change significantly (Table 3). (P < 0.01 for both). ITT analysis was also similar
In the vacuum IFC group, all symptoms other than (P = 0.04 and 0.02 respectively) (Table 3).
early satiation (P = 0.05) improved at the 2nd and 4th There were significant differences between vacuum
week of therapy and 1 month after treatment when IFC and placebo groups with respect to early satiation,
compared with pre-treatment evaluation. P values were bloating and heartburn. According to the Jacobson and
<0.01 for epigastric discomfort, pyrosis, bloating, Truax’ criteria for bloating, 15 (63%) of treated patients
postprandial fullness, gastro-oesophageal reflux and vs. 7 (29%) of placebo showed significant improvement

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968

ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
966 S . K Ö K L Ü et al.

at the 2nd week of therapy; 18 (75%) of treated patients

(10 ⁄ 25)
(11 ⁄ 25)

(11 ⁄ 25)
(10 ⁄ 25)
(9 ⁄ 25)
(8 ⁄ 25)

(6 ⁄ 25)

17.3 ⁄ 28 (7 ⁄ 25)
17.3 ⁄ 32 (8 ⁄ 25)
8.6 ⁄ 8 (2 ⁄ 25)
Post-treatment
vs. 10 (42%) of placebo showed significant improve-
ment at the 4th week of therapy. For early satiation, 7

26 ⁄ 40
30.4 ⁄ 44
21.7 ⁄ 36
17.3 ⁄ 32
30.4 ⁄ 44
26.0 ⁄ 40
8.6 ⁄ 24
(38%) of treated patients vs. 3 (14%) of placebo showed

 There is significantly difference between interference and placebo groups at the 2nd and 4th week of treatment sessions and after treatment (P = 0.04, 0.02 and 0.04 respectively).
significant improvement at the 2nd week of therapy; 10
(55%) of treated patients vs. 5 (24%) of placebo showed

(11 ⁄ 25)
(5 ⁄ 25)
(8 ⁄ 25)
(6 ⁄ 25)
(8 ⁄ 25)
(6 ⁄ 25)

(6 ⁄ 25)

21.7 ⁄ 36 (9 ⁄ 25)
13.0 ⁄ 28 (7 ⁄ 25)
significant improvement at the 4th week of therapy; 10
(55%) of treated patients vs. 6 (29%) of placebo showed
4th week

4.3 ⁄ 20
4.3 ⁄ 32
8.6 ⁄ 24
17.3 ⁄ 32
8.6 ⁄ 24
30.4 ⁄ 44
8.6 ⁄ 24

0 ⁄ 25
significant improvement at 1 month after therapy. For
heartburn, 9 (56%) of treated patients vs. 1 (6%) of pla-
cebo showed significant improvement at 1 month after
therapy. RCI was significant for early satiation and
(11 ⁄ 25)
(11 ⁄ 25)
(11 ⁄ 25)

26.0 ⁄ 40 (10 ⁄ 25)

(6 ⁄ 25)
(8 ⁄ 25)
(9 ⁄ 25)

(9 ⁄ 25)

26.0 ⁄ 36 (9 ⁄ 25)
heartburn, but not for bloating.
2nd week

There were no adverse events due to either vacuum

9 ⁄ 24
17.3 ⁄ 32
21.7 ⁄ 36
30.4 ⁄ 44
30.4 ⁄ 44
39.1 ⁄ 44
30.4 ⁄ 36

0 ⁄ 25

* There is significantly difference between interference and placebo groups at the 2nd and 4th week of treatment sessions (P = 0.02 for both). IFC or placebo.

DISCUSSION
(24 ⁄ 25)
(23 ⁄ 25)
(24 ⁄ 25)
(18 ⁄ 25)
(23 ⁄ 25)
(20 ⁄ 25)
(21 ⁄ 25)

57.1 ⁄ 64 (16 ⁄ 25)

56.5 ⁄ 68 (17 ⁄ 25)
21.7 ⁄ 20 (5 ⁄ 25)
Pre-treatment
Interference

The present study is the first time to report on the

91.3 ⁄ 96
82.6 ⁄ 92
91.3 ⁄ 96
60.8 ⁄ 72
82.6 ⁄ 92
69.5 ⁄ 80
73.9 ⁄ 84

beneficial application of vacuum inferential current

 There is significant difference between interference and placebo groups at the post-treatment evaluation (P = 0.02).
Table 3. Documentation of all upper gastrointestinal symptoms before, during and after treatments

therapy in FD patients. Both placebo and vacuum IFC

were effective in the treatment. Vacuum IFC was more
effective with respect to improving symptoms of FD as
(10 ⁄ 25)
(13 ⁄ 25)
(15 ⁄ 25)
(13 ⁄ 25)
(15 ⁄ 25)

61.9 ⁄ 60 (15 ⁄ 25)

38.0 ⁄ 40 (10 ⁄ 25)
(8 ⁄ 25)

(7 ⁄ 25)

4.7 ⁄ 4 (1 ⁄ 25)
Post-treatment

compared with placebo.

Functional dyspepsia is characterized by the pres-
27.2 ⁄ 32
36.3 ⁄ 40
52.3 ⁄ 52
61.9 ⁄ 60
52.3 ⁄ 52
61.9 ⁄ 60
23.8 ⁄ 28

ence of gastroduodenal symptoms in the absence of

any organic disease that may explain the symptoms.
Patients with FD have a diminished health-related
(11 ⁄ 25)
(14 ⁄ 25)
(16 ⁄ 25)
(14 ⁄ 25)
(14 ⁄ 25)

52.3 ⁄ 52 (13 ⁄ 25)

(6 ⁄ 25)

(6 ⁄ 25)

33.3 ⁄ 36 (9 ⁄ 25)
4.7 ⁄ 4 (1 ⁄ 25)

quality of life and it is also often difficult for doctors

to treat and expensive for society.1 The aetiology of
4th week

18.1 ⁄ 24
27.2 ⁄ 44
57.1 ⁄ 56
66.6 ⁄ 64
57.1 ⁄ 56
57.1 ⁄ 56
19.0 ⁄ 24

FD is not clear though several pathophysiological

mechanisms, including delayed gastric emptying,
impaired gastric accommodation, visceral hypersensi-
tivity, nervous system dysregulation and psychological
(11 ⁄ 25)
(11 ⁄ 25)
(17 ⁄ 25)
(18 ⁄ 25)
(15 ⁄ 25)
(16 ⁄ 25)

57.1 ⁄ 56 (14 ⁄ 25)

38.0 ⁄ 40 (10 ⁄ 25)
(7 ⁄ 25)

4.7 ⁄ 4 (1 ⁄ 25)

stress have been implicated.12

2nd week

As the exact pathophysiological mechanisms caus-

40.9 ⁄ 44
40.9 ⁄ 44
76.1 ⁄ 68
76.1 ⁄ 72
61.9 ⁄ 60
66.6 ⁄ 64
23.8 ⁄ 28

ing symptoms in an individual patient cannot be

delineated, there is no standard treatment modality for
patients with FD. Hence, numerous treatment options
(24 ⁄ 25)
(17 ⁄ 25)
(24 ⁄ 25)
(21 ⁄ 25)
(21 ⁄ 25)
(21 ⁄ 25)
(17 ⁄ 25)

66.6 ⁄ 64 (16 ⁄ 25)

76.1 ⁄ 72 (18 ⁄ 25)
14.2 ⁄ 12 (3 ⁄ 25)

have been described, including dietary and lifestyle

Pre-treatment

modifications, various pharmacological agents and,

95.2 ⁄ 96
71.4 ⁄ 68
100 ⁄ 96
90.4 ⁄ 84
90.4 ⁄ 84
90.4 ⁄ 84
71.4 ⁄ 68
Placebo

recently, complementary and alternative treatments.2

P values were for ITT analysis.

There is no single available therapy that consistently

provides relief to the majority of FD patients, demon-
strating the heterogeneity of this disorder. Hence, one
Variables (%, PP ⁄ ITT)

Epigastric discomfort

Postprandial fullness

Gastro-oesophageal

cannot generalize the therapeutic approach for these

(ITT, proportion)

Early satiation

patients and cannot predict the degree of response.

Heartburn

Delayed gastric emptying has been considered one

Vomiting
Bloating*

Belching

reflux
Pyrosis

Nausea

of the mechanisms contributing to symptoms of

gastrointestinal motility disorders. Delayed gastric

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968

ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 C L I N I C A L T R I A L : I N T E R F E R E N T I A L E L E C T R I C S T I M U L A T I O N I N F U N C T I O N A L D Y S P E P S I A 967

emptying has been reported in more than one-third of
FD patients.2 There are no effective therapeutic options
that optimally improve gastric emptying and hence
further research is ongoing. Gastric electric stimulation
is a novel experimental and clinical approach to the
treatment of patients with gastrointestinal motility dis-
orders. While performing gastric electrical stimulation
for patients who have gastroparesis, temporary or per-
manent improvement of constipation in almost all of
the patients has been noted.7 It has been reported that
although the gastric emptying rate could not be
improved, electric stimulation improved symptoms in
gastroparesis.13, 14 Low-frequency gastric electrical
stimulation normalizes gastric dysrhythmia, resulting
in improvement of gastric emptying. On the other
hand, high frequency stimulation improves symptoms
although it cannot accelerate gastric emptying.15 A
current study suggests that electrical stimulation acti-
vates both afferent and efferent vagal pathways, and
finally decreases gastric sensitivity to volume disten-
tion, which enhances postprandial gastric stimulation.4
Interferential therapy is a form of non-invasive trans-
cutaneous electrical stimulation. It produces sinusoidal
currents that cross within the body. It has been applied to
the treatment of several disorders, including muscle
strengthening, soft-tissue mobilizing, detrusor instability
and slow transit constipation.3, 6, 7 When interferential
therapy has been used clinically to treat urinary inconti-
nence due to bladder overactivity, diarrhoea occurred as
a side effect of IFC, suggesting an increase in bowel
motility.5 Afterwards, IFC has been tried in patients with
chronic constipation. Electrical stimulation at the applied
site is likely to stimulate local skin nerve fibres, vagal
symphathetic and parasympathetic outflow to the gastro-
intestinal tract, and nerves within the gut.3 Improvement
of constipation in previous reports and symptoms of FD
in the present study may be due to neuromodulation of
excitatory and inhibitory neural control by a supraspinal
or a spinal pathway.7 To our knowledge, interferential
therapy has not previously been applied to patients with
FD. As in the present study, studies have not reported any
adverse effects of interferential treatment. It is non-inva-
sive, painless and relatively inexpensive. Although it
requires trained physiotherapists, home-use, portable
units have become available recently.6
In the present study, patients were homogeneous
regarding age, gender, educational and occupation sta-
tus. Most of the patients suffering from FD are women.
This study reports the outcomes of women with a low
education status. More research is needed not only to
test these results but also to extend the range of par-
ticipants, for instance, to male patients and those with
different occupations. Actually, patients included in
this study were from the ‘hard-to-treat’ group, as they
were all unresponsive to pharmacological treatment.
Although significantly lower than interferential treat-
ment in several symptoms of FD, a higher response
rate for placebo in the present study supports the psy-
chological aspect of FD.
A limitation of the study was the questionnaire used
to assess responses. Using validated questionnaires,
such as a visual analogue score, would have been better.
However, any change in each symptom at the middle
and end of treatment, and after the treatment sessions
was compared with the basal status of each symptom
and our expectations for the answers (the same,
decreased or increased) were to reflect the definite
changes. Another limitation of the study was a lower
number of patients than we had planned. As each study
physiotherapist carried out treatment sessions of IFC
and placebo groups separately, continuing with a new
physiotherapist would have given several biases.
In conclusion, this preliminary study demonstrates
that vacuum interference electrical stimulation is a
promising alternative therapy for FD. It seems benefi-
cial, free of adverse effects and may be applied at least
when the symptoms of FD are aggravated or are unre-
sponsive to medical treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Declaration of personal and funding interests: None.

REFERENCES
1 Henningsen P, Zipfel S, Herzog W. Man-
agement of functional somatic syndromes.
Lancet 2007; 369: 946–55.
2 Saad RJ, Chey WD. Current and emerging
therapies for functional dyspepsia. Ali-
ment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 475–92.
3 Chase J, Robertson VJ, Southwell B, Hut-
son J, Gibb S. Pilot study using transcuta-
neous electrical stimulation (interferential
current) to treat chronic treatment-resis-
tant constipation and soiling in children.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20: 1054–
61.

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968

ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
968 S . K Ö K L Ü et al.
4 McCallum RW, Dusing RW, Sarosiek I,
Cocjin J, Forster J, Lin Z. Mechanisms of
symptomatic improvement after gastric
electrical stimulation in gastroparetic
patients. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010;
22: 161–7, e50–1.
5 Emmerson C. A preliminary study of the
effect of interferential therapy on detrusor
instability in patients with multiple scle-
rosis. Aust J Physiother 1987; 33: 64–5.
6 Clarke MCC, Chase JW, Gibb S, et al.
Decreased colonic transit time after trans-
cutaneous interferential electrical stimula-
tion in children with slow transit
constipation. J Ped Surg 2009; 44: 408–
12.
7 Clarke MCC, Chase JW, Gibb S, Hutson
JM, Southwell BR. Improvement of qual-
ity of life in children with slow constipa-
tion after treatment with transcutaneous
interferential electrical stimulation. J Ped
Surg 2009; 44: 1268–73.
8 Tack J. Gastric motor and sensory func-
tion. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009; 25:
557–65.
9 Xing JH, Chen JD. Gastric electrical stim-
ulation with parameters for gastroparesis
enhances gastric accommodation and
alleviates distention-induced symptoms in
dogs. Dig Dis Sci 2006; 51: 2160–4.
10 Park MI, Camilleri M. Gastroparesis: clini-
cal update. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;
101: 1129–39.
11 Weinkauf JG, Yiannopoulos A, Faul JL.
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimula-
tion for severe gastroparesis after lung
transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant
2005; 24: 1444.
12 Haag S, Senf W, Tagay S, et al. Is there
any association between disturbed gastro-
intestinal visceromotor and sensory func-
tion and impaired quality of life in
functional dyspepsia? Neurogastroenterol
Motil 2009 (Epub ahead of print).
13 Lin Z, Forster J, Sarosiek I, McCallum
RW. Effect of high frequency gastric elec-
trical stimulation on gastric myoelectric
activity in gastroparetic patients. Neuro-
gastroenterol Motil 2004; 16: 205–12.
14 McCallum R, Lin Z, Wetzel P, et al. Clini-
cal response to gastric electrical stimula-
tion in patients with postsurgical
gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2005; 3: 49–54.
15 Monnikes H, van der Voort IR. Gastric
electrical stimulation in gastroparesis:
where do we stand? Dig Dis 2006; 24:
260–6.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 961–968
ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd