Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28245858›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

John Eraifej, William Clark, Benjamin France, Sebastian Desando, David Moore

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 94 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03658798 naterminatednot on this map

Testing the Efficacy of Garment-embedded Electrodes for Functional Electrical Stimulation: Training of Individuals With Upper-limb Paralysis.

TypeinterventionalSponsorMilos PopovicRan2017 to 2022Enrolled8ConditionsStroke, Spinal Cord InjuriesArmsFunctional Electrical Stimulation
NCT06928857 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Study on the Effects Induced by an Electromyographic-controlled Functional Electrical Stimulator (FitFES) for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Post-stroke Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorFondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSRan2025 to 2025Enrolled50ConditionsStrokeArmsEMG-based FES rehabilitation, Traditional rehabilitation
NCT07513714 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Combined With Task- Oriented Training on Upper Limb Recovery in Post-Stroke Patients With Spastic Hemiparesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of FoggiaRan2026 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsStroke, Post-Stroke Spasticity, Post-Stroke HemiparesisArmsFunctional Electrical Stimulation (FES), Conventional Rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effects of home-based neurostimulation on outcomes after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Functional Electrical Stimulation and Stroke Rehabilitation Research: The Critical Role of Sham Control Groups.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

John EraifejSchool of Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. jxe117@student.bham.ac.uk.
William ClarkSchool of Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Benjamin FranceSchool of Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Sebastian DesandoSchool of Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
David MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

methodsSystematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

resultsTwenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD -0.10; CI [-0.59, 0.38], n = 35). Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

conclusionsFES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42015025162 , Date:11/08/2015.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingArmElectric Stimulation TherapyMotor SkillsHumansStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeFunctional electrical stimulationMeta-analysis, neurorehabilitationStrokeSystematic reviewUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID28245858
PMCPMC5331643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.