Trial reportTrials2017
Electrical somatosensory stimulation followed by motor training of the paretic upper limb in acute stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02250365 (Electrical Somatosensory Stimulation of the Paretic Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients - a Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Electrical Somatosensory Stimulation of the Paretic Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients - a Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Electrical Stimulation on Upper Limb Function During the Acute Phase of Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurology international · 2026Review
- Article
- To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke.Archives of physiotherapy · 2020Review
- Easily Conducted Tests During the First Week Post-stroke Can Aid the Prediction of Arm Functioning at 6 Months.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Motor relearning program along with electrical stimulation for improving upper limb function in stroke patients: A quasi experimental study.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper limb paresis is one of the most frequent and persistent impairments following stroke. Only 12-34% of stroke patients achieve full recovery of upper limb functioning, which seems to be required to habitually use the affected arm in daily tasks. Although the recovery of upper limb functioning is most pronounced during the first 4 weeks post stroke, there are few studies investigating the effect of rehabilitation during this critical time window. The purpose of this trial is to determine the effect of electrical somatosensory stimulation (ESS) initiated in the acute stroke phase on the recovery of upper limb functioning in a nonselected sample of stroke patients. METHODS/
designA sample of 102 patients with upper limb paresis of varying degrees of severity is assigned to either the intervention or the control group using stratified random sampling. The intervention group receives ESS plus usual rehabilitation and the control group receives sham ESS plus usual rehabilitation. The intervention is applied as 1 h of ESS/sham ESS daily, followed by motor training of the affected upper limb. The ESS/sham ESS treatment is initiated within 7 days from stroke onset and it is delivered during hospitalization, but no longer than 4 weeks post stroke. The primary outcome is hand dexterity assessed by the Box and Block Test; secondary outcomes are the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, hand grip strength, pinch strength, perceptual threshold of touch, degree of pain, and modified Rankin Scale score. Outcome measurements are conducted at baseline, post intervention and at 6-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Because of the wide inclusion criteria, we believe that the results can be generalized to the larger population of patients with a first-ever stroke who present with an upper limb paresis of varying severity. On the other hand, the sample size (n = 102) may preclude subgroup analyses in such a heterogeneous sample. The sham ESS treatment totals a mere 2% of the active ESS treatment delivered to the intervention group per ESS session, and we consider that this dose is too small to induce a treatment effect.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02250365 . Registered on 18 September 2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.