Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2016
Effects of plantar stimulation on cardiovascular response to orthostatism.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWalking is a complex locomotor process that involves both spinal cord reflexes and cortical integration of peripheral nerve input. Maintaining an upright body position requires not only neuromuscular activity but also cardiovascular regulation. We postulated that plantar mechanical stimulation might modulate autonomic nervous system activity and, thereby, impact blood pressure adaptation during standing.
methodsTwelve healthy subjects underwent three randomly ordered 45-min 70°-saddle tilt tests while the plantar surfaces of the feet were stimulated using specially engineered Korvit boots in the following modes: (1) no stimulation, (2) disrupted stimulation, and (3) walking mode. Orthostatic tolerance time was measured for each trial. During testing, we obtained an electrocardiogram and measured blood pressure, skin blood flow, and popliteal vein cross-sectional area. We estimated central hemodynamics, baroreflex sensitivity and heart rate variability.
resultsOrthostatic tolerance time was not found to differ significantly between test conditions (37.2 ± 10.4, 40.9 ± 7.6, and 41.8 ± 8.2 min, for no stimulation, disrupted stimulation, and walking mode, respectively). No significant differences between treatment groups were observed for stroke volume or cardiac baroreflex sensitivity, both of which decreased significantly from baseline during tilt testing in all groups. Cardiac sympathetic index and popliteal vein cross-sectional area increased at the end of the tilt period in all groups, without significant differences between treatments.
conclusionsPlantar mechanical stimulation is insufficient for immediate modulation of cardiac sympathetic and parasympathetic activity under orthostatic stress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27688160What OpenQuestion holds
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.