Trial reportAmerican journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation2020
Adding Contralaterally Controlled Electrical Stimulation of the Triceps to Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation of the Finger Extensors Reduces Upper Limb Impairment and Improves Reachable Workspace but not Dexterity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation compared to conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of limb function following a stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Contralaterally controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation-induced changes in functional connectivity in patients with stroke assessed using functional near-infrared spectroscopy.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2022Trial
- Efficacy of Neurostimulations for Upper Extremity Function Recovery after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Neuromotor prosthetic to treat stroke-related paresis: N-of-1 trial.Communications medicine · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDifferent methods of neuromuscular electrical stimulation may be used for poststroke upper limb rehabilitation. This study evaluated the effects of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation of the triceps and finger extensors.
designThis is a randomized controlled trial of 67 participants who were less than 2 yrs poststroke and assigned to the following: (a) arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, (b) hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, or (c) arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Participants were prescribed 10 sessions/week of assigned electrical stimulation at home plus 24 sessions of functional task practice in the laboratory for 12 wks. The primary outcome measure was the Box and Blocks Test. Secondary measures included reachable workspace, Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer, Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale, Arm Motor Abilities Test, and Motor Activity Log.
resultsThere were no significant between-group differences on the Box and Blocks Test. At 6 mos after treatment, arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved reachable workspace more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 264 (95% confidence interval = 28-500) cm and more than arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 281 (95% confidence interval = 22-540) cm. Arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 6.7 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-12.7). The between-group differences on the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale and Arm Motor Abilities Test were not significant.
conclusionsAdding contralaterally controlled elbow extension to hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation does not improve on gains in hand dexterity, but it further reduces upper limb impairment and improves reachable workspace measured in the laboratory. However, these additional benefits may not be large enough to be perceived by stroke survivors when they are performing activities of daily living at home.
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.