Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33417035›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2021

Insights into the combination of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and motor imagery in a training-based approach.

Amandine Bouguetoch, Alain Martin, Sidney Grosprêtre

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amandine BouguetochCognition, Action and Sensorimotor Plasticity [CAPS], Unité INSERM 1093, Université de Bourgogne-UFR STAPS, BP 27877, 21078, Dijon Cedex, France. amandine.bouguetoch@free.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8083-8679
Alain MartinCognition, Action and Sensorimotor Plasticity [CAPS], Unité INSERM 1093, Université de Bourgogne-UFR STAPS, BP 27877, 21078, Dijon Cedex, France.
Sidney GrosprêtreEA-4660 C3S Culture Sport Health Society, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France.
Inserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTraining stimuli that partially activate the neuromuscular system, such as motor imagery (MI) or neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), have been previously shown as efficient tools to induce strength gains. Here the efficacy of MI, NMES or NMES + MI trainings has been compared.

methodsThirty-seven participants were enrolled in a training program of ten sessions in 2 weeks targeting plantar flexor muscles, distributed in four groups: MI, NMES, NMES + MI and control. Each group underwent forty contractions in each session, NMES + MI group doing 20 contractions of each modality. Before and after, the neuromuscular function was tested through the recording of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), but also electrophysiological and mechanical responses associated with electrical nerve stimulation. Muscle architecture was assessed by ultrasonography.

resultsMVC increased by 11.3 ± 3.5% in NMES group, by 13.8 ± 5.6% in MI, while unchanged for NMES + MI and control. During MVC, a significant increase in V-wave without associated changes in superimposed H-reflex has been observed for NMES and MI, suggesting that neural adaptations occurred at supraspinal level. Rest spinal excitability was increased in the MI group while decreased in the NMES group. No change in muscle architecture (pennation angle, fascicle length) has been found in any group but muscular peak twitch and soleus maximal M-wave increased in the NMES group only.

conclusionFinally, MI and NMES seem to be efficient stimuli to improve strength, although both exhibited different and specific neural plasticity. On its side, NMES + MI combination did not provide the expected gains, suggesting that their effects are not simply cumulative, or even are competitive.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdultElectric StimulationEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleH-ReflexHumansIsometric ContractionMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalNeuronal PlasticityYoung AdultSpinal excitabilityStrengthTriceps suraeUltrasonographyV-wave

Identifiers

PMID33417035
PMCPMC7892697
OpenAlexW3119520799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.