Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23921276›Full record

SynthesisCritical care medicine2013

Electrical muscle stimulation in the intensive care setting: a systematic review.

Selina M Parry, Sue Berney, Catherine L Granger, Renè Koopman, Doa El-Ansary, Linda Denehy

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02214823 nacompletednot on this map

Functional Electrical Stimulation Assisted Cycling (eStimCycle):A Novel Intervention to Improve Outcomes in the Critically Ill

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssociate Professor Sue Berney PhD, BPTRan2012 to 2018Enrolled162ConditionsIntensive Care Unit Acquired Weakness (ICUAW)ArmsFES-Cycling, Standard Care
NCT05962060 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation With and Without Electrical Muscle Stimulation on Spasticity, Gait and Lower Limb Functions of Chronic Stroke Patients.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled22ConditionsChronic StrokeArmsProprioceptive neuromuscular facilition, Electrical muscle stimulator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Selina M Parry1Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3Department of Physiology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sue Berney
Catherine L Granger
Renè Koopman
Doa El-Ansary
Linda Denehy
University of Melbourne · AUAustin Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe role of electrical muscle stimulation in intensive care has not previously been systematically reviewed.

objectivesTo identify, evaluate, and synthesize the evidence examining the effectiveness and the safety of electrical muscle stimulation in the intensive care, and the optimal intervention variables. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of articles using eight electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database, Expanded Academic ASAP, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PubMed, and Scopus) personal files were searched, and cross-referencing was undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative studies published in English, assessing electrical muscle stimulation in intensive care, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: One reviewer extracted data using a standardized form, which were cross-checked by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Newcastle-Ottawa scales, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were followed.

resultsNine studies on six individual patient groups of 136 participants were included. Eight were randomized controlled trials, with four studies reporting on the same cohort of participants. Electrical muscle stimulation appears to preserve muscle mass and strength in long-stay participants and in those with less acuity. No such benefits were observed when commenced prior to 7 days or in patients with high acuity. One adverse event was reported. Optimal training variables and safety of the intervention require further investigation.

conclusionsElectrical muscle stimulation is a promising intervention; however, there is conflicting evidence for its effectiveness when administered acutely. Outcomes measured are heterogeneous with small sample sizes.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyIntensive Care UnitsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalMuscle WeaknessPatient SafetyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23921276
OpenAlexW2326274823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.