ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Electrical stimulation devices for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: Preliminary studies of physiological efficacy and user satisfaction.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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.
- Trial
- Nursing diagnosis proposal "Impaired Peripheral Venous Return": concept formation.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Review
- Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the recovery of people with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit: A narrative review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectrical stimulation could provide an alternative method for preventing venous thromboembolism in stroke patients. The purpose of this preliminary study was to explore the effects of electrical stimulation and intermittent pneumatic compression on enhancing lower limb venous return in healthy and chronic stroke patients and also to evaluate patient and nurse satisfaction.
methodsWe investigated the effectiveness of two electrical stimulation devices: Geko (Firstkind Ltd, High Wycombe, UK) and Orthopaedic Microstim 2V2 (Odstock Medical Ltd, Salisbury, UK); and one intermittent pneumatic compression device: Huntleigh Flowstron Universal (Huntleigh Healthcare Ltd, Cardiff, UK). We recruited 12 healthy and 5 chronic stroke participants. The devices were fitted sequentially, and Doppler ultrasound measurements were taken. Eight patients and nurses were also recruited for a separate usability evaluation.
resultsThe electrical stimulation devices emulated the blood flow characteristics of intermittent pneumatic compression in both healthy and stroke participants provided that the intensity of electrical stimulation was sufficient. Patients and nurses also felt that the electrical stimulation devices were acceptable.
conclusionsElectrical stimulation may offer benefit as an alternative method for venous thromboembolism prevention in stroke patients. The apparent benefit is sufficient to warrant further investigation in a full powered randomised controlled trial.
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.