SynthesisPloS one2018
Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient Suprahyoid Muscle Contraction by Combined Modulated Currents in Mice.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Electrical Muscle Stimulation with Russian Current in Chronic Cerebral Ischaemia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhanced nerve function recovery in radial nerve palsy patients with humerus shaft fracture: a randomized study of low-frequency pulse electrical stimulation combined with exercise therapy.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science. REVIEW
methodsRandomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model.
resultsIn total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.
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.