Trial reportMedicine2022
Effects on venous flow of transcutaneous electrical stimulation, neuromuscular stimulation, and sham stimulation on soleus muscle: A randomized crossover study in healthy subjects.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Preventing Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Enhancement of Cerebral Oxygenation by Lower-Limb Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Stroke Survivors.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Observational
- Interventions to mitigate pain and reduce skin impedance during neuromuscular electrical stimulation.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Electrical stimulation therapy for peripheral nerve injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActivation of venous flow has been shown with different types of electrical stimulation. The aim of this study is to compare the hemodynamic effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and sham stimulation on healthy young people.
methodsThis randomized crossover study was conducted during June 2018 in the Faculty of Physical Therapy of A Coruña (Spain). Twenty-four university students (50% male) received in a randomized order 5 Hz-TENS, NMES, and sham stimulation on soleus muscle. Flow volume (FV) and peak velocity (PV) from popliteal vein were recorded via Doppler ultrasound, and relative changes from baseline were determined. Discomfort among the 3 stimulations was also compared.
resultsThe differences among the 3 stimulations were assessed using the ANOVA for repeated measured, the Friedman test and the Kendall tau test, according to the type of measurement to be compared. FV (mL/min) and PV (cm/s) increased significantly after NMES (percentual increase 37.2 ± 62.0%, P = .002; 264.4 ± 152.2%, P < .001, respectively) and TENS (226.2 ± 190.3%, P < .001; 202.7 ± 144.6%, P < .001, respectively). These percentual changes from basal level in hemodynamics were statistically different to those after placebo, which was ineffective enhancing hemodynamics. The improvements in FV were statistically higher with TENS than with NMES (P < .001), but there was no statistical difference in PV (P = .531). Despite NMES was applied at a significantly lower amplitude than TENS (P < .001), NMES protocol was the worst tolerated, though the differences in discomfort were not statistically significant.
conclusionBoth active electrical protocols but not sham stimulation increased hemodynamics in healthy people. TENS obtained higher flow volume increase from baseline than NMES, considered globally at not only in its on-time.
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.