Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34552328›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2021

Optimal Method of Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Upper Limb Dysfunction After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Yuqi Tang, Linjia Wang, Jinxi He, Yipeng Xu, Shijie Huang, Yu Fang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Yuqi Tang *Department of Neurology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, People's Republic of China.
Linjia Wang *School of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Jinxi HeDepartment of Pain, Sichuan Provincial Transportation Department Road Bureau Hospital, Chengdu, 611731, People's Republic of China.
Yipeng XuSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Shijie HuangSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Yu FangDepartment of Neurology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe obstacle of limb motor caused by stroke, especially the decline of motor function of upper limbs, can directly affect the activities of daily living of stroke patients with hemiplegia. Based on long-term clinical practice, the treatment effect of electrical stimulation methods for stroke limb dysfunction has been widely recognized and supported by authoritative guidelines and systematic reviews. However, which electrical stimulation method is the optimum in the treatment of stroke limb dysfunction is still a controversial issue.

objectiveIn this paper, we adopted Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) to rank the priorities of various electrical stimulation methods, so as to select the optimal electrical stimulation method and discuss its rationality in guiding clinical practice.

methodsWe carried out a systematic review by searching a total of 6806 studies from 8 databases and 2 clinical trial registries, and finally screened out 34 studies for further investigation. Then, pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were employed to evaluate the effectiveness and ranking of various interventions. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and the secondary outcome measures were Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Finally, the risk of bias, publication bias and sensitivity of the Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were evaluated.

resultsOn the basis of comprehensive rehabilitation treatment (RT), the Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) was superior than other electrical stimulation methods in improving both FMA-UE and MBI. Meanwhile, the results indicated that the Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) was the only electrical stimulation method that showed treatment advantages in reducing MAS.

conclusionThe study showed that FES had the optimal overall rehabilitation effect on upper limb dysfunction of stroke patients based on the comprehensive RT, while the treatment effect of TEAS on upper limb spasticity after stroke was the most significant.

Indexed as

electrical stimulationnetwork meta-analysisstrokeupper limb dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID34552328
PMCPMC8450164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.