ArticleMedicine2018
The effects of physical therapy with neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with septic shock: Study protocol for a randomized cross-over design.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Neuromuscular electrical stimulation enhances the ability of serum extracellular vesicles to regenerate aged skeletal muscle after injury.Experimental gerontology · 2023Article
- Effects of Albumin Supplements on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Improves Energy Substrate Metabolism and Survival in Mice With Acute Endotoxic Shock.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2020Article
- Low expression of microRNA-328 can predict sepsis and alleviate sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction and inflammatory response.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeptic shock is a potentially fatal organ dysfunction caused by an imbalance of the host response to infection. The changes in microcirculation during sepsis can be explained by the alterations in the endothelial barrier function. Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are a potential recovery index of endothelial function and it an increase in response to neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) was demonstrated. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effects of NMES in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: It is a study protocol for a randomized cross-over design in an intensive care unit of a tertiary University hospital. Thirty-one patients aged 18 to 65 years. The study will be divided in 2 phases: the phase one will be held in the first 72 hours of septic shock and the phase two after 3 days of first assessment. Patients will be randomly selected to the intervention protocol (decubitus position with the limbs raised and NMES) and control protocol (decubitus position with the limbs raised without NMES). After this procedure, the patients will be allocated in group 1 (intervention and control protocol) or group 2 (control and intervention protocol) with a wash-out period of 4 to 6 hours between them. The main outcome is mobilization of EPCs. The secondary outcome is metabolic and hemodynamic data. A linear mixed model will be used for analysis of dependent variables and estimated values of the mean of the differences of each effect.
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.