Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37269156›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2023

Transcutaneous spinal stimulation in people with and without spinal cord injury: Effect of electrode placement and trains of stimulation on threshold intensity.

Harrison T Finn, Elizabeth A Bye, Thomas G Elphick, Claire L Boswell-Ruys, Simon C Gandevia, Jane E Butler, Martin E Héroux

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Harrison T FinnNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth A ByeNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas G ElphickNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Claire L Boswell-RuysNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Simon C GandeviaNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Jane E ButlerNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Martin E HérouxNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-7104
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSS) is purported to improve motor function in people after spinal cord injury (SCI). However, several methodology aspects are yet to be explored. We investigated whether stimulation configuration affected the intensity needed to elicit spinally evoked motor responses (sEMR) in four lower limb muscles bilaterally. Also, since stimulation intensity for therapeutic TSS (i.e., trains of stimulation, typically delivered at 15-50 Hz) is sometimes based on the single-pulse threshold intensity, we compared these two stimulation types. In non-SCI participants (n = 9) and participants with a SCI (n = 9), three different electrode configurations (cathode-anode); L1-midline (below the umbilicus), T11-midline and L1-ASIS (anterior superior iliac spine; non-SCI only) were compared for the sEMR threshold intensity using single pulses or trains of stimulation which were recorded in the vastus medialis, medial hamstring, tibialis anterior, medial gastrocnemius muscles. In non-SCI participants, the L1-midline configuration showed lower sEMR thresholds compared to T11-midline (p = 0.002) and L1-ASIS (p < 0.001). There was no difference between T11-midline and L1-midline for participants with SCI (p = 0.245). Spinally evoked motor response thresholds were ~13% lower during trains of stimulation compared to single pulses in non-SCI participants (p < 0.001), but not in participants with SCI (p = 0.101). With trains of stimulation, threshold intensities were slightly lower and the incidence of sEMR was considerably lower. Overall, stimulation threshold intensities were generally lower with the L1-midline electrode configuration and is therefore preferred. While single-pulse threshold intensities may overestimate threshold intensities for therapeutic TSS, tolerance to trains of stimulation will be the limiting factor in most cases.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord StimulationElectrodesHumansMuscle, SkeletalQuadriceps Musclespinal cord injurytranscutaneous spinal stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37269156
PMCPMC10238786
OpenAlexW4379197145

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.