ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Electrical Stimulation of Acute Fractures: A Narrative Review of Stimulation Protocols and Device Specifications.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced multifunctional thermo- and electro-stimulative hydrogels for bone regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Clinical Applications of Biophysical Stimuli Technologies for Bone Healing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- The role of an ultrasound-responsive injectable piezoelectric hydrogel in promoting nerve regeneration and alleviating neuropathic pain.Theranostics · 2026Article
- The role of electrical stimulation in bone regeneration: mechanistic insights and therapeutic advances.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Safety and preliminary efficacy of an electrically stimulated implant for mandibular bone regeneration: a pilot study in a large animal model.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Biophysical stimuli for promoting bone repair and regeneration.Medical review (2021) · 2025Review
- Electrostrategies in orthopaedic research.Biomaterials translational · 2025Article
- Unleashing the Potential of Electroactive Hybrid Biomaterials and Self-Powered Systems for Bone Therapeutics.Nano-micro letters · 2024Review
- Methods to accelerate fracture healing - a narrative review from a clinical perspective.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Effects of electrical stimulation with alternating fields on the osseointegration of titanium implants in the rabbit tibia - a pilot study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of bone stimulators in large-animal models and humans may be limited by weak electric fields reaching fracture.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthopedic fractures have a significant impact on patients in the form of economic loss and functional impairment. Beyond the standard methods of reduction and fixation, one adjunct that has been explored since the late 1970s is electrical stimulation. Despite robust evidence for efficacy in the preclinical arena, human trials have mixed results, and this technology is not widely accepted. The purpose of this review is to examine the body of literature supporting electrical stimulation for the purpose of fracture healing in humans with an emphasis on device specifications and stimulation protocols and delineate a minimum reporting checklist for future studies of this type. We have isolated 12 studies that pertain to the administration of electrical stimulation for the purpose of augmenting fracture healing in humans. Of these, one was a direct current electrical stimulation study. Six studies utilized pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and five used capacitive coupling. When examining these studies, the device specifications were heterogenous and often incomplete in what they reported, which rendered studies unrepeatable. The stimulation protocols also varied greatly study to study. To demonstrate efficacy of electrical stimulation for fractures, the authors recommend isolating a fracture type that is prone to nonunion to maximize the electrical stimulation effect, a homogenous study population so as to not dilute the effect of electrical stimulation, and increasing scientific rigor in the form of pre-registration, blinding, and sham controls. Finally, we introduce the critical components of minimum device specification reporting for repeatability of studies of this type.
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.