SynthesisTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
The Effects of Functional Electrical Stimulation Cycling on Muscle Spasticity in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
- Comparing Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Added to Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis with Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis Alone on Pain, Trunk Control, and Respiratory Function in Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a kinematic hindlimb cycling model for rats.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effects of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling on muscle spasticity in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and provide recommendations for optimal FES cycling parameters to treat muscle spasticity. Method: In this systematic review, database searches of CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus were conducted to identify relevant studies published up to June 2023. Studies were screened for eligibility. Those that included an FES cycling intervention, an outcome measure of spasticity, and were available in full-text English were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and appraised the literature via the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Results: Of the 1782 studies identified, 16 satisfied the criteria for this review. Two-hundred and three participants were included, aged 7 to 80 years old. Ten studies identified a reduction in spasticity following FES cycling via objective or subjective outcome measures. Methodological quality was variable, with CCAT scores ranging from 19/40 (48%) to 35/40 (88%). National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy levels ranged from II to IV. Conclusion: Evidence for the effectiveness of FES cycling to reduce muscle spasticity remains inconclusive. Long-term effects on spasticity were evident in moderate- to high-quality studies where FES cycling was conducted for 60 minutes, three times per week for 16 weeks. Additional research with larger sample sizes is warranted to confirm these findings. Further clarification of the optimal parameters of FES frequency, amplitude, and pulse width to reduce spasticity is required.
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.