Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26797502›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Body Position Influences Which Neural Structures Are Recruited by Lumbar Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Simon M Danner, Matthias Krenn, Ursula S Hofstoetter, Andrea Toth, Winfried Mayr, Karen Minassian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Simon M DannerDepartment of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Matthias KrennCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ursula S HofstoetterCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea TothCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Winfried MayrCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Karen MinassianCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATDrexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcutaneous stimulation of the human lumbosacral spinal cord is used to evoke spinal reflexes and to neuromodulate altered sensorimotor function following spinal cord injury. Both applications require the reliable stimulation of afferent posterior root fibers. Yet under certain circumstances, efferent anterior root fibers can be co-activated. We hypothesized that body position influences the preferential stimulation of sensory or motor fibers. Stimulus-triggered responses to transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation were recorded using surface-electromyography from quadriceps, hamstrings, tibialis anterior, and triceps surae muscles in 10 individuals with intact nervous systems in the supine, standing and prone positions. Single and paired (30-ms inter-stimulus intervals) biphasic stimulation pulses were applied through surface electrodes placed on the skin between the T11 and T12 inter-spinous processes referenced to electrodes on the abdomen. The paired stimulation was applied to evaluate the origin of the evoked electromyographic response; trans-synaptic responses would be suppressed whereas direct efferent responses would almost retain their amplitude. We found that responses to the second stimulus were decreased to 14%±5% of the amplitude of the response to the initial pulse in the supine position across muscles, to 30%±5% in the standing, and to only 80%±5% in the prone position. Response thresholds were lowest during standing and highest in the prone position and response amplitudes were largest in the supine and smallest in the prone position. The responses obtained in the supine and standing positions likely resulted from selective stimulation of sensory fibers while concomitant motor-fiber stimulation occurred in the prone position. We assume that changes of root-fiber paths within the generated electric field when in the prone position increase the stimulation thresholds of posterior above those of anterior root fibers. Thus, we recommend conducting spinal reflex or neuromodulation studies with subjects lying supine or in an upright position, as in standing or stepping.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationPostureSpinal Cord StimulationSupine PositionAdolescentAdultElectromyographyFemaleHumansLumbosacral RegionMaleSpinal CordYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26797502
PMCPMC4721643
OpenAlexW2257062313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.