Trial reportMedicine2018
Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation via peroneal nerve or soleus muscle on venous flow: A randomized cross-over study in healthy subjects.
Trial report 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Recovery and Protective Effect of Direct Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Acute and Subacute Fibular Tunnel Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Continuous muscle pump activation by neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve in the treatment of patients with venous leg ulcers: A position paper.International wound journal · 2024Review
- Is Low-Frequency Electrical Stimulation a Tool for Recovery after a Water Rescue? A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Effect of Active and Passive Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis and Consensual Effect on the Venous Blood Flow Velocity Among Hemiparetic Patients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is used to prevent venous stasis and thromboembolism. However, best electrostimulation parameters have yet to be established. The aim of the study was to compare the hemodynamic effects and the participants' relative discomfort of 3 TENS sequences at the maximum tolerated intensity stimulus.
methodsTwenty-four healthy university students (50% male) participated in a cross-over, randomized study. Each participant received 2 TENS sequences on peroneal nerve at 1 and 5 Hz, and the third one on soleus muscle at 5 Hz. Popliteal flow volume (FV) and peak velocity (PV) were measured using Doppler ultrasound and the relative change from basal values was recorded. Discomfort questionnaires -visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS)- were also administered to compare sensations among the three applications.
resultsAll interventions produced significant hemodynamic responses compared to baseline. Both 5 Hz applications obtained higher FV increments than 1 Hz TENS (P < .001). The muscle application resulted in the lowest PV increment (P < .001). TENS at 5 Hz on nerve location was the worst tolerated, with higher values in VRS (P = .056) and VAS (P = .11), although not significant.
conclusionTENS at 5 Hz on soleus site may be the most appropriate protocol for enhancing venous return.
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.