Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32506358›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020

How does cross-education affects muscles of paretic upper extremity in subacute stroke survivors?

Ozan Volkan Yurdakul, Mehmet Serkan Kilicoglu, Aylin Rezvani, Okan Kucukakkas, Fatma Eren, Teoman Aydin

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04113369 (How Does Cross-education Affect Muscles of Paretic Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke Survivors?), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04113369 nacompletednot on this map

How Does Cross-education Affect Muscles of Paretic Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke Survivors?

TypeinterventionalSponsorBezmialem Vakif UniversityRan2018 to 2019Enrolled30ConditionsHemiplegia, StrokeArmsTENS, Conventional rehabilitation, EMS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ozan Volkan YurdakulDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv. 34093 Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey. yurdakul_ozan@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4567-8133
Mehmet Serkan KilicogluDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv. 34093 Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Aylin RezvaniDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Faculty of Medicine, Medipol University, TEM otoyolu. 34214 Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey.
Okan KucukakkasDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv. 34093 Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fatma ErenDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 185 S Orange Ave, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Teoman AydinDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv. 34093 Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Bezmiâlem Vakıf Üniversitesi · TRIstanbul Medipol University · TRRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Bezmiâlem Vakif Üniversitesi 2015-16/10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the benefits of adding electromuscular stimulation (EMS) to the flexors of wrist muscles on the nonparetic limb in conventional stroke training to strengthen homologous agonist and antagonist muscles on the paretic side in patients with subacute stroke.

methodsThe EMS group patients (n = 15) received conventional therapy for 30 sessions for 6 weeks (60 min/session) with 30 min of electrical stimulation to their nonparetic forearm using wrist flexors, with 5 min of pre- and post-warm-up. The transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) group patients (n = 15) received the same conventional rehabilitation training with 30 min of conventional antalgic TENS at a barely sensible level to their nonparetic forearm. The Fugl-Meyer motor function assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE), functional independence measure (FIM), Brunnstrom staging of recovery for hand, maximum and mean wrist flexion force (flexion

resultsEMS and TENS group patients improved similarly in terms of FMA-UE, FIM, and Brunnstrom staging for hand recovery. However, flexion

conclusionCross-education via EMS may have a beneficial effect as an adjunct to conventional treatment methods. This study is retrospectively registered and is available at www.clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT04113369).

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansMusclesParesisRecovery of FunctionSurvivorsTreatment OutcomeUpper ExtremityElectromuscular stimulationHemiplegiaInterlimb transferMuscle strength

Identifiers

PMID32506358
OpenAlexW3032956202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.