ArticleBMC urology2017
Increasing bladder capacity by foot stimulation in rats with spinal cord injuries.
Article in BMC urology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcutaneous neuromodulation versus oxybutynin for neurogenic detrusor overactivity in persons with spinal cord injury: A randomized, investigator blinded, parallel group, non-inferiority controlled trial.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Trial
- Low-Frequency Intravesical Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Acute Urinary Retention: A Promising Therapeutic Approach.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- [Application and progress of neuromodulation in lower urinary tract dysfunction].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020Review
- Neuromodulation of spinal reflex pathway for the treatment of detrusor overactivity by medial plantar nerve stimulation at surface of sole of foot in patients with spinal cord injury.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to explore the possibility that foot stimulation increased bladder capacity(BC) in rats with neurogenic bladder secondary to T10 spinal cord injuries.
methodsIn 20 awake rats (stimulation group) with T10 spinal cord injuries, 5 repeat cystometrograms (CMGs) were recorded. The 1st and 2nd CMGs were performed without stimulation. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th CMGs were done separately with 1 T, 2 T, and 4 T stimulation, respectively, through a pair of pad electrodes on the skin of the hind foot. In the control group of 20 rats, 5 repeat CMGs were recorded without foot stimulation. The threshold (T) was the minimal stimulation intensity to induce an observable toe twitch.
resultsIn the stimulation group, foot stimulation with 2 T significantly increased the BC an additional 68.9% ± 20.82% (p < 0.05). Foot stimulation with 4 T increased the BC an additional 120.9% ± 24.82% (p < 0.05). Compared with the control group, BC in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (1 T) CMG had no significant difference in the stimulation group, but the 4th (2 T) and 5th (4 T) CMGs were significantly increased (p < 0.05).
conclusionsElectrical stimulation of the foot was effective in inhibiting reflex bladder activity and increasing bladder capacity in spinal cord injury rats.
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.