ArticlePhysiological reports2017
Intramuscular stimulation of tibialis anterior in human subjects: the effects of discharge variability on force production and fatigue.
Article in Physiological reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Anti-Inflammatory Action of Pulsed Radiofrequency-A Hypothesis and Potential Applications.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Short-Term Effects of PENS versus Dry Needling in Subjects with Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain and Active Myofascial Trigger Points in Levator Scapulae Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Insights About the Neuroplasticity State on the Effect of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation in Pain and Disability Associated With Chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Intramuscular stimulation of tibialis anterior in human subjects: the effects of discharge variability on force production and fatigue.Physiological reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous intramuscular stimulation of tibialis anterior (TA) was used to test the hypothesis that irregular trains of stimuli can increase force production and offset the magnitude of fatigue when compared with a continuous train of regular stimuli at an identical mean frequency (19 or 24 Hz). To achieve this, tungsten microelectrodes were inserted into the muscle belly into the motor point of the tibialis anterior muscle of able-bodied individuals (aged 19-50) and stimulated at current intensities ranging from 5 to 7 mA. The motor point was stimulated with a continuous train of regular stimulation at either 19 or 24 Hz (
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.