ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2024
We Will, We Will Shock You: Adaptive Versus Conventional Functional Electrical Stimulation in Individuals Post-Stroke.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is often used in poststroke gait rehabilitation to address decreased walking speed, foot drop, and decreased forward propulsion. However, not all individuals experience clinically meaningful improvements in gait function with stimulation. Previous research has developed adaptive functional electrical stimulation (AFES) systems that adjust stimulation timing and amplitude at every stride to deliver optimal stimulation. The purpose of this work was to determine the effects of a novel AFES system on functional gait outcomes and compare them to the effects of the existing FES system. Twenty-four individuals with chronic poststroke hemiparesis completed 64-min walking trials on an adaptive and fixed-speed treadmill with no stimulation, stimulation from the existing FES system, and stimulation from the AFES system. There was no significant effect of stimulation condition on walking speed, peak dorsiflexion angle, or peak propulsive force. Walking speed was significantly faster and peak propulsive force was significantly larger on the adaptive treadmill (ATM) than the fixed-speed treadmill (both p < 0.0001). Dorsiflexor stimulation timing was similar between stimulation conditions, but plantarflexor stimulation timing was significantly improved with the AFES system compared to the FES system (p = 0.0059). Variability between and within subjects was substantial, and some subjects experienced clinically meaningful improvements in walking speed, peak dorsiflexion angle, and peak propulsive force. However, not all subjects experienced benefits, suggesting that further research to characterize which subjects exhibit the best instantaneous response to FES is needed to optimize poststroke gait rehabilitation using FES.
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.