Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30198383›Full record

SynthesisNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2018

Repetitive Peripheral Sensory Stimulation and Upper Limb Performance in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Adriana Bastos Conforto, Sarah Monteiro Dos Anjos, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Arnaldo Alves da Silva, Juliana Conti, André G Machado, Leonardo G Cohen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Adriana Bastos Conforto1 Hospital das Clínicas São Paulo University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sarah Monteiro Dos Anjos3 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Wanderley Marques Bernardo4 São Paulo University Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Arnaldo Alves da Silva2 Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana Conti1 Hospital das Clínicas São Paulo University, São Paulo, Brazil.
André G Machado5 Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Leonardo G Cohen6 National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRCleveland Clinic · USHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRNational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Modulating brain plasticity in rehabilitation of stroke and other brain lesionsZIANS003030 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI COHEN, LEONARDO GREGORIO · 2009 to 2025
$23.2M
Combined brain and peripheral nerve stimulation to enhance beneficial effects ofR01NS076348 · NINDS · FUNDACAO FACULDADE DE MEDICINA · PI CONFORTO, ADRIANA B · 2012 to 2015
$441k
Novel strategies for stroke rehabilitation (planning grant)D71TW009132 · FIC · FUNDACAO FACULDADE DE MEDICINA · PI CONFORTO, ADRIANA B · 2011 to 2012
$58k
FIC NIH HHS D71 TW009132NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS076348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhancement of sensory input in the form of repetitive peripheral sensory stimulation (RPSS) can enhance excitability of the motor cortex and upper limb performance.

objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of RPSS compared with control stimulation on improvement of motor outcomes in the upper limb of subjects with stroke.

methodsWe searched studies published between 1948 and December 2017 and selected 5 studies that provided individual data and applied a specific paradigm of stimulation (trains of 1-ms pulses at 10 Hz, delivered at 1 Hz). Continuous data were analyzed with means and standard deviations of differences in performance before and after active or control interventions. Adverse events were also assessed.

resultsThere was a statistically significant beneficial effect of RPSS on motor performance (standard mean difference between active and control RPSS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.09-1.24; I

conclusionsRPSS is a safe intervention with potential to become an adjuvant tool for upper extremity paresis rehabilitation in subjects with stroke in the chronic phase.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyHumansRecovery of FunctionStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeUpper Extremityelectric stimulation therapymotor skillsparesisstrokeupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID30198383
PMCPMC6404964
OpenAlexW2891289876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.