ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2024
Measurement of Knee Extensor Torque During Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation: Comparison of the Forces Induced by Different Stimulators.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the factors that induce strong contractions during repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and compare the muscle torque induced by two stimulators (Stim A and Stim B) with different coil properties.
methodsrPMS was applied to the right vastus lateralis of 30 healthy young adults. Stim A contained a 10.1 cm2 rectangular iron core coil, while Stim B contained a 191 cm2 round coil. The knee extensor torque (KET) induced by rPMS at 30 Hz was measured isometrically and divided by the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) to obtain a relative value of MVC (%MVC). KET at 100% intensity of Stim A (A100%, 1.08 T) was compared to those at 100% or 70% intensity of Stim B (B100%, 1.47 T vs. B70%, 1.07 T). Additionally, we conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies that measured the KET during rPMS.
resultsBoth the mean values of %MVC using B100% and B70% were significantly greater than that using A100%. Furthermore, the KET induced by Stim B was found to be larger than that described in previous reports, unless booster units were used to directly stimulate the main trunk of the femoral nerve.
conclusionStim B induced a stronger muscle contraction force than Stim A did. This may be because the larger the coil area, the wider the area that can be stimulated. Additionally, a circular coil allows for deeper stimulation.
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.