ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2021
Comparison of wire and disc electrodes to electrically activate the inspiratory muscles in dogs.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of wire versus disc electrodes to activate the inspiratory muscles via high frequency spinal cord stimulation.
designAnimal study.
settingResearch laboratory. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 5)
interventionsIn separate trials, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was applied via disc (DE) and two parallel wire electrodes (WE) on the ventral epidural space at the T2-T3 spinal region. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Airway pressure (P) and inspired volume (V) generation following stimulation with DE and WE were compared. Given our previous success with (DE), outcome variables with this electrode were used as our gold standard to which all comparisons were made.
resultsTwo configurations of WE using monopolar stimulation (MS) resulted in P and V that were similar to those generated with MS with DE. For example, MS with parallel WE connected together to function as a common cathode (Y-connection) and a 2-channel system (separate cathodes with a remote ground), resulted in P that were 91 ± 6 and 92 ± 4%, respectively, of those achieved with DE (NS for both). Bipolar stimulation with parallel WE using a Y-connection and with a 2-channel system, resulted in P that were 96 ± 4 and 94 ± 4%, of the P achieved with DE (NS for both). CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that specific configurations of WE, which can be placed via minimally invasive techniques, provide comparable activation of the inspiratory muscles compared to DE and may be a useful technique to restore ventilatory support in persons with spinal cord injury.
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.