ArticleAnnals of intensive care2022
Efficacy and safety of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the prevention of pressure injuries in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for early rehabilitation in critically ill patients: a systematic review of applied protocols.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of electrical stimulation in critical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Skin thickness alterations in pressure injury tissue: insights from high-frequency ultrasound and mixed-design analysis of variance.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Intra- and inter-observer reliability of ultrasound muscle thickness of gluteal and biceps femoris long head in individuals with and without SCI.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2026Article
- Time-varying effect of venous hemodynamics in intensive care via neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a prospective' single-center' self-controlled study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- A Feasibility Study of Thermography for Detecting Pressure Injuries Across Diverse Skin Tones.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- From bedside to recovery: exercise therapy for prevention of post-intensive care syndrome.Journal of intensive care · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the Effect of Gluteus Maximus Contraction by Electrical Stimulation on Interfacial Pressure in Supine Bed Positions.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPressure injuries (PIs), especially in the sacral region are frequent, costly, and increase morbidity and mortality of patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). These injuries can occur as a result of prolonged pressure and/or shear forces. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can increase muscle mass and improve local circulation, potentially reducing the incidence of PI.
methodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of NMES in preventing PI in critically ill patients. We included patients with a period of less than 48 h in the ICU, aged ≥ 18 years. Participants were randomly selected (1:1 ratio) to receive NMES and usual care (NMES group) or only usual care (control group-CG) until discharge, death, or onset of a PI. To assess the effectiveness of NMES, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT). We assessed the muscle thickness of the gluteus maximus by ultrasonography. To assess safety, we analyzed the effects of NMES on vital signs and checked for the presence of skin burns in the stimulated areas. Clinical outcomes were assessed by time on mechanical ventilation, ICU mortality rate, and length of stay in the ICU.
resultsWe enrolled 149 participants, 76 in the NMES group. PIs were present in 26 (35.6%) patients in the CG and 4 (5.3%) in the NMES group (p ˂ 0.001). The NMES group had an RR = 0.15 (95% CI 0.05-0.40) to develop a PI, NNT = 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-5.9). Moreover, the NMES group presented a shorter length of stay in the ICU: Δ = - 1.8 ± 1.2 days, p = 0.04. There was no significant difference in gluteus maximus thickness between groups (CG: Δ = - 0.37 ± 1.2 cm vs. NMES group: Δ = 0 ± 0.98 cm, p = 0.33). NMES did not promote deleterious changes in vital signs and we did not detect skin burns.
conclusionsNMES is an effective and safe therapy for the prevention of PI in critically ill patients and may reduce length of stay in the ICU. Trial registration RBR-8nt9m4. Registered prospectively on July 20th, 2018, https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8nt9m4.
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.