Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29067867›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of spinal cord medicine2018

Comparison of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) for spasticity in spinal cord injury - A pilot randomized cross-over trial.

Anjali Sivaramakrishnan, John M Solomon, Natarajan Manikandan

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Comparison of Single-Session Dose Response Effects of Whole Body Vibration on Spasticity and Walking Speed in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2018
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Spinal cord injury: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Narrative review of current neuromodulation modalities for spinal cord injury.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anjali Sivaramakrishnana Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences , Manipal University , Karnataka , India.ORCID 0000-0001-8763-9699
John M Solomona Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences , Manipal University , Karnataka , India.ORCID 0000-0001-9342-1581
Natarajan Manikandana Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences , Manipal University , Karnataka , India.ORCID 0000-0002-4329-5748
Manipal Academy of Higher Education · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSpasticity following spinal cord injury (SCI) can impair function and affect quality of life. This study compared the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) on lower limb spasticity in patients with SCI.

designDouble blind randomized crossover design.

settingNeuro-rehabilitation unit, Manipal University, India.

participantsTen participants (age: 39 ± 13.6 years, C1-T11, 1-26 months post SCI) with lower limb spasticity were enrolled in this study.

interventionsParticipants were administered electrical stimulation with TENS and FES (duration - 30 minutes) in a cross over manner separated by 24 hours. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spasticity was measured using modified Ashworth scale (MAS) [for hip abductors, knee extensors and ankle plantar flexors] and spinal cord assessment tool for spastic reflexes (SCATS). Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately, 1 hour, 4 hours, and 24 hours post intervention.

resultsA between group analysis did not show statistically significant differences between FES and TENS (P > 0.05). In the within group analyses, TENS and FES significantly reduced spasticity up to 4 hours in hip adductors and knee extensors (P < 0.01). SCATS values showed significant reductions at 1 hour (P = 0.01) following TENS and 4 hours following FES (P = 0.01).

conclusionA single session of electrical stimulation with FES and TENS appears to have similar anti-spasticity effects that last for 4 hours. The findings of this preliminary study suggest that both TENS and FES have the potential to be used as therapeutic adjuncts to relieve spasticity in the clinic. In addition, FES may have better effects on patients presenting with spastic reflexes.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle SpasticitySpinal Cord InjuriesTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationFunctional electrical stimulationSpasticitySpastic reflexesSpinal cord injuryTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID29067867
PMCPMC6055976
OpenAlexW2765487837

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.