Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653674›Full record

Trial reportSpinal cord2017

Effects of orthotic therapeutic electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with paresis associated with acute cervical spinal cord injury: a randomized control trial.

K Iwahashi, T Hayashi, R Watanabe, A Nishimura, T Ueta, T Maeda, K Shiba

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Spinal cord, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

K IwahashiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
T HayashiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
R WatanabeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
A NishimuraDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
T UetaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
T MaedaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
K ShibaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA randomized controlled trial.

objectivesTo determine the effects of orthotic therapeutic electrical stimulation (TES) on the hand in patients with paresis associated with acute cervical spinal cord injury.

settingSpinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan.

methodsThe study included patients treated for spinal cord injuries (Frankel classification, grades B and C) at our institution within 1 week post injury between May 2011 and December 2014. The patients were allocated randomly to TES and control groups at the time of admission and underwent TES+conventional training or conventional training alone, respectively. Both hands of each patient were treated in the same way. The primary outcome was total passive motion (TPM) of the fingers (degrees). The secondary outcomes were edema (cm) and the upper-extremity motor scores of the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). After randomization, outcomes were assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months post injury in both groups.

resultsTwenty-nine individuals were assessed at 3 months (15, TES; 14, control). There were no significant between-group differences for TPM of the fingers, edema and upper-extremity motor scores at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after injury, although TPM of the fingers tended to be lower in the control group.

conclusionsIt is unclear from the results of this study whether TES has a therapeutic effect on TPM, edema or the upper-extremity motor score of the ISNCSCI. The results of this study provide useful data for future meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyCervical CordEdemaFemaleHandHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityParesisSpinal Cord InjuriesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28653674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.