Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36457863›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Evaluating the validity of a functional electrical stimulation clinical decision making tool: A qualitative study.

Nathalie Abouzakhm, Samantha Choy, Rebecca Feld, Chris Taylor, Kathryn Carter, Spencer Degroot, Kristin E Musselman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. An Intuitive, Bidirectional, and Adaptive Functional Electrical Stimulation System for Hand Rehabilitation.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Reinforcement Learning Agent Trained as FES Controller in Modified Xia-Law Simulation Robustly Controls Grip Force.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nathalie AbouzakhmDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Samantha ChoyDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rebecca FeldDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Chris TaylorDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kathryn CarterDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Spencer DegrootDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kristin E MusselmanDepartment of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Following central nervous system damage, the recovery of motor function is a priority. For some neurological populations, functional electrical stimulation (FES) is recommended in best practice guidelines for neurorehabilitation. However, limited resources exist to guide FES application, despite clinicians reporting that a lack of FES knowledge prevents use in clinical practice. The FES Clinical Decision Making Tool was developed to assist clinicians with FES application and translation into clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content validity of the Tool from the perspectives of Canadian physical and occupational therapists using FES in neurorehabilitation. Methods: Thirteen participants (twelve women, one man), aged 40.5 ± 10.3 years, participated in individual semi-structured interviews to explore their clinical decision making experiences when applying FES and to evaluate the content validity (i.e., appropriateness, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness) of the Tool. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative conventional content analysis following the DEPICT model. Results: Three themes were identified. 1) Clinician context influences FES usage. Participants' experiences with FES use varied and application was influenced by treatment goals. 2) Parameter selection in clinical practice. Participants identified decision-making strategies and the challenges of parameter selection. 3) With modifications, the Tool is a valid resource to inform FES applications. Participants discussed its strengths, limitations, and suggested changes. While the Tool is useful, a more extensive resource (e.g., appendix) for the Tool is warranted. Discussion: A revised Tool was created to improve its comprehensiveness and comprehensibility. Thus, the Tool is a valid resource for applying FES in neurorehabilitation.

Indexed as

evidence-based practicefunctional electrical stimulationneurorehabilitationoccupational therapistphysical therapistqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID36457863
PMCPMC9707702
OpenAlexW4309212230

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.