ReviewArtificial organs2025
Differences and Commonalities of Electrical Stimulation Paradigms After Central Paralysis and Amputation.
Review in Artificial organs, 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.
- Electrochemical characterisation of new textile electrodes based on a conductive silicon yarn for bioelectrical stimulation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Innovative Assistive Technologies for Tetraplegia: A Narrative Review of Systematic and Emerging Evidence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with spinal cord injury (SCI) or with severe brain stroke suffer from life-lasting functional and sensory impairments. Other traumatic injuries such as limb loss after an accident or disease also affect motor function and sensory feedback and impair quality of life in those individuals. Invasive and non-invasive functional electrical stimulation (FES) is a well-established method to partially restore function and sensory feedback of paralyzed and phantom limbs. It is also a supporting technology for the rehabilitation of the neuromuscular system and for complementing assistive devices.
methodsThis work reviews the current state-of-the-art of FES as a technology for restoring function and supporting rehabilitation therapy and assistive devices.
resultsElectrodes, electrical stimulation, use of brain signals for rehabilitation and control, and sensory feedback are covered as parts of the whole. A perspective is given on how clinical and research protocols developed for patients with SCI and brain injuries can be translated to the treatment of patients with an amputation and vice versa. We further elaborate on how motor learning strategies with quantitative electrophysiological and kinematic measurements may help caregivers in the rehabilitation process. Insights from practitioners (collected during a workshop of the IFESS 2025) have been integrated to summarize common needs, open questions, and challenges.
conclusionsThe information from the literature and from practitioners was integrated to propose the next steps towards establishing common guidelines and measures of FES in clinical practice towards evidence-driven treatment and objective assessments.
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.