Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2019
Impact of stimulation frequency on neuromuscular fatigue.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocols Targeting Afferent Pathways via Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for the Plantar Flexors: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of electromyostimulation on intramyocellular lipids of the vastus lateralis in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Trial
- Effects of arm-cycling exercise during triceps surae neuromuscular electrical stimulation on torque output and fatigue.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- The impact of submaximal fatiguing exercises on the ability to generate and sustain the maximal voluntary contraction.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to examine the frequency effects (20 Hz and 100 Hz) on neuromuscular fatigue using stimulation parameters favoring an indirect motor unit recruitment through the afferent pathway.
methodsNineteen subjects were divided into two groups: 20 Hz (n = 10) and 100 Hz (n = 9). The electrical stimulation session consisted of 25 stimulation trains (20 s ON/20 s OFF, pulse width: 1 ms) applied over the tibial nerve and delivered at an intensity evoking 10% maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Before and after these protocols, MVIC was assessed, while neural changes were evaluated by the level of activation (VAL) and muscle changes were evaluated by the twitch associated with the maximal M-wave (Pt). For all stimulation trains, the real and the theoretical values of the torque-time integral (TTIr and TTIth, respectively) were calculated. The TTIr/TTIth ratio of the first train was calculated to evaluate the presence of extra torque.
resultsThe main results showed a similar decrease in MVIC torque after both protocols accompanied by neural and muscle changes, as evidenced by the decrease in VAL and Pt. TTIr values across the 20-Hz trains remained constant, whereas they significantly decreased during the 100-Hz stimulation trains. The relative MVIC decrease was negatively correlated with TTIr/TTIth.
conclusionResults give evidence of an identical neuromuscular fatigue development between protocols, while lower stimulation frequency permitted preservation of a given torque level during the stimulation trains. The negative correlation between this fatigue development and TTIr/TTIth suggests that extra torque production induces greater voluntary torque losses.
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.