Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30022346›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

The efficacy and prescription of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dominic O'Connor, Brian Caulfield, Olive Lennon

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Motor point heatmap of the calf.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Self-directed home-based neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status: a feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Dominic O'ConnorThe Insight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Centre for Science, University College Dublin Belfield Campus, Dublin, Ireland. dominic.oconnor@insight-centre.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3054-0636
Brian CaulfieldThe Insight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Centre for Science, University College Dublin Belfield Campus, Dublin, Ireland.
Olive LennonUCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IE

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 722012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to (1) summarise and critically evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on indices of health and quality of life (QoL) in adult cancer survivors, (2) assess the safety of NMES as a rehabilitation method in this population, and (3) identify commonly used NMES treatment parameters and describe treatment progression.

methodsA systematic search of four electronic databases targeted studies evaluating the effects of NMES on physical function, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in adult cancer survivors, published through March 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study.

resultsNine studies were included. Meta-analyses found that the overall pooled effect favoured NMES for improving muscle strength, but the standardised mean difference was not significant (0.36; 95% CI - 0.25, 0.96). Further meta-analyses indicated that NMES significantly improved HR-QoL (0.36; 95% CI 0.10, 0.62), with notable gains identified under the subcategories QoL Function (0.87; 95% CI 0.32, 1.42). Current NMES prescription is not standardised and NMES is prescribed to target secondary complications of treatment. Risk of bias was high for most studies.

conclusionsNMES use in adult cancer survivors is an emerging field and current literature is limited by studies of poor quality and a lack of adequately powered RCTs. Existing evidence suggests that NMES is safe and may be more effective than usual care for improving HR-QoL. Prescription and progression should be tailored for the individual based on functional deficits.

Indexed as

AdultCancer SurvivorsDisease ProgressionElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansQuality of LifeAdult cancer survivorsNeuromuscular electrical stimulationOncologyPhysical functionRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID30022346
OpenAlexW2885016210

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.