ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Initial feasibility evaluation of the RISES system: An innovative and activity-based closed-loop framework for spinal cord injury rehabilitation and recovery.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective Biomarker Development for Parameter Optimization in Neuromodulation Using High-Density EMG Temporal and Spatial Features.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimizing Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Electrode Montages and Stimulation Intensity on Reflex Pathway Modulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electrical stimulation of the spinal cord may improve rewiring of the affected pathways. Immediate modulation of stimulation parameters, and its effects of it on kinematics and electromyographic variables is unclear. Methods: This study piloted the safety and feasibility of the Reynolds Innovative Spinal Electrical Stimulation (RISES) technology with a focus on its novel closed-loop setting. This personalized, task-specific non-invasive stimulation system enables real-time stimulation parameter modulation and supports multi-data acquisition and storage. Four SCI participants underwent a clinical trial coupled with activity-based training. Primary safety outcome measures included adverse events (AEs) and skin integrity; secondary measures were vital signs, pain, and fatigue assessed at the pre, mid, and post-stimulation sessions. The trial included open-loop and closed-loop blocks of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS). Results: Results showed no serious adverse events, with skin integrity unaffected. Vital signs and pain showed no significant differences across session timepoints. Fatigue levels differed significantly with post-session > mid-session > pre-session. Comparisons between open-loop and closed-loop blocks showed no significant differences in setup time, vital signs, pain, or fatigue. Average stimulation duration per task was significantly longer for open-loop (467.6 sec) than Closed-loop (410.8 sec). Conclusions: RISES, demonstrated safety and feasibility. Further work will focus on clinical efficacy.
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.