Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34105256›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2021

Four weeks of electromyostimulation improves muscle function and strength in sarcopenic patients: a three-arm parallel randomized trial.

Marc Teschler, Melina Heimer, Boris Schmitz, Wolfgang Kemmler, Frank C Mooren

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Marc TeschlerDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5613-6703
Melina HeimerDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Boris SchmitzDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7041-7424
Wolfgang KemmlerInstitute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3515-0669
Frank C MoorenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0258-2732

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSarcopenia, defined as loss of muscle mass, quality, and function, is associated with reduced quality of life and adverse health outcomes including disability and mortality. Electromyostimulation (EMS) has been suggested to attenuate the loss of muscle mass and function in elderly, sedentary individuals. This study aimed to investigate the effects of EMS on muscle strength and function during 4 weeks of inpatient medical rehabilitation.

methodsPatients receiving 4 weeks of inpatient medical rehabilitation diagnosed with sarcopenia using bioimpedance analysis were eligible to participate. One hundred and thirty-four patients (55.7 ± 7.9 years, 25.4% female) were randomly assigned to three groups: whole-body (WB) EMS (n = 48): stimulation of major muscle groups (pectoral muscles, latissimus, trapezius, abdominals, upper arm and leg, lower back muscles, gluteal muscles, and thighs); part-body (PB) EMS (n = 42): stimulation of leg muscles including gluteal muscles and thighs; and control group (CG, n = 44). All participants performed six 20 min training sessions including dynamic movements (squats, lunges, biceps curl, chest press, butterfly reverse, reverse lunges, standing diagonal crunches, etc.) with superimposed (WB-, PB-) EMS or without EMS (CG) in addition to the standard rehabilitation programme. Primary outcome variables included muscle function assessed by chair rise test and 6 min walking test as well as muscle strength (isometric grip strength, leg, arm, and back extension).

resultsPrimary outcome variables chair rise test and leg extension improved significantly (P = 0.001, η

conclusionsWe conclude that EMS might be an additional training option to improve muscle function and strength in sarcopenic patients during a 4 week rehabilitation programme. EMS provides greater functional and strength improvements compared with standard treatment with additional potential health benefits for sarcopenic cardiac and orthopaedic patients.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapySarcopeniaAgedFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthQuality of LifeCardiologyExerciseOrthopedyPreventionRehabilitationStrength

Identifiers

PMID34105256
PMCPMC8350212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.