ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2018
The duty cycle in Functional Electrical Stimulation research. Part II: Duty cycle multiplicity and domain reporting.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Home-Based Functional Electrical Stimulation of Human Permanent Denervated Muscles: A Narrative Review on Diagnostics, Managements, Results and Byproducts Revisited 2020.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Home FES: An Exploratory Review.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
- 2019Spring PaduaMuscleDays: Translational Myology and Mobility Medicine.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
- 2019 Ejtm Special on Muscle Fascia.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
- Reporting for Duty: The duty cycle in Functional Electrical Stimulation research. Part I: Critical commentaries of the literature.European journal of translational myology · 2018Article
- The duty cycle in Functional Electrical Stimulation research. Part II: Duty cycle multiplicity and domain reporting.European journal of translational myology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In part I of this review, we introduced the duty cycle as a fundamental parameter in controlling the effect of electrical stimulation pulse trains on muscle structural and functional properties with special emphasis on fatigue. Following on from a survey of the literature, we discuss here the relative ability of intermittent and continuous stimulation to fatigue muscle. In addition, pertinent literature is explored on a more deeper level, highlighting contentions regarding the duty cycle across studies. In response to literature inconsistencies, we propose frameworks upon which the duty cycle parameter may be specified. We present the idea of domain reporting for the duty cycle, and illustrate with practical examples. In addition we dig further into the literature and present a set of notations that have been used by different researchers to report the duty cycle. We also propose the idea of the duty cycle multiple, which together with domain reporting, will help researchers understand more precisely duty cycles of electrical stimulation. As a case study, we also show how the duty cycle has been looked at by researchers in the context of pressure sore attenuation in patients. Together with part I, it is hoped that the frameworks suggested provide a complete picture of how duty cycle has been discussed across the literature, and gives researchers a more trans-theoretical basis upon which they may report the duty cycle in their studies. This may also lead to a more precise specification of electrical stimulation protocols used in patients.
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.