ArticleScientific reports2024
Effects of releasing ankle joint during electrically evoked cycling in persons with motor complete spinal cord injury.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Literature has shown that simulated power production during conventional functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling was improved by 14% by releasing the ankle joint from a fixed ankle setup and with the stimulation of the tibialis anterior and triceps surae. This study aims to investigate the effect of releasing the ankle joint on the pedal power production during FES cycling in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Seven persons with motor complete SCI participated in this study. All participants performed 1 min of fixed-ankle and 1 min of free-ankle FES cycling with two stimulation modes. In mode 1 participants performed FES-evoked cycling with the stimulation of quadriceps and hamstring muscles only (QH stimulation), while Mode 2 had stimulation of quadriceps, hamstring, tibialis anterior, and triceps surae muscles (QHT stimulation). The order of each trial was randomized in each participant. Free-ankle FES cycling offered greater ankle plantar- and dorsiflexion movement at specific slices of 20° crank angle intervals compared to fixed-ankle. There were significant differences in the mean and peak normalized pedal power outputs (POs) [F(1,500) = 14.03, p < 0.01 and F(1,500) = 7.111, p = 0.008, respectively] between fixed- and free-ankle QH stimulation, and fixed- and free-ankle QHT stimulation. Fixed-ankle QHT stimulation elevated the peak normalized pedal PO by 14.5% more than free-ankle QH stimulation. Releasing the ankle joint while providing no stimulation to the triceps surae and tibialis anterior reduces power output. The findings of this study suggest that QHT stimulation is necessary during free-ankle FES cycling to maintain power production as fixed-ankle.
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.