Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35721861›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Electrical Stimulation of Acute Fractures: A Narrative Review of Stimulation Protocols and Device Specifications.

Peter J Nicksic, D'Andrea T Donnelly, Nishant Verma, Allison J Setiz, Andrew J Shoffstall, Kip A Ludwig, Aaron M Dingle, Samuel O Poore

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Electrostrategies in orthopaedic research.Biomaterials translational · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter J NicksicDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
D'Andrea T DonnellyDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
Nishant VermaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Allison J SetizDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
Andrew J ShoffstallDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Kip A LudwigDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Aaron M DingleDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
Samuel O PooreDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USCase Western Reserve University · USWisconsin Institutes for Discovery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

capacitive couplingdirect currentelectrical stimulationfracturehumanpulsed electromagnetic field

Identifiers

PMID35721861
PMCPMC9201474
OpenAlexW4281766086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.