ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2018
Effects of Very High Stimulation Frequency and Wide-Pulse Duration on Stimulated Force and Fatigue of Quadriceps in Healthy Participants.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 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.
- Effect of focal muscle vibration on sEMG activity during repeated elbow movements in healthy adults.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Dual 500-μs wide pulse neuromuscular electrical stimulation enhancing sensorimotor cortical excitability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- A wearable functional electrical stimulation device with a movable electrode for motor point tracking.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effect of very high stimulation frequency (150 and 200 Hz) with wide pulse duration versus 50 Hz with wide pulse duration on stimulated force and fatigue of quadriceps femoris in healthy participants.
methodsThirty-four healthy participants underwent fatigue test using three stimulation frequency conditions (50, 150, and 200 Hz) with pulse duration of 0.9 ms. Normalized force values at the end of each fatigue protocol and curve fitting patterns were compared among stimulated frequencies.
resultsVery high stimulation frequency (150 and 200 Hz) conditions showed a trend of having more decline in normalized stimulated force during fatigue test compared to a low stimulation frequency at 50 Hz. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Responder group showed the same slope of a linear fitting pattern, implying the same pattern of muscle fatigue among three stimulation frequency conditions (-3.32 in 50 Hz, -2.88 in 150 Hz, and -3.14 in 200 Hz, respectively).
conclusionThere were high inter-subject variations in the response to different frequency stimulation conditions. However, very high stimulation frequency generated the same fatigue pattern as the low stimulation frequency in the responder group. Further research is needed to explore the mechanism involved.
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.