Trial reportPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2025
Effects of kilohertz versus low-frequency electrical stimulation of the wrist extensors in patients after stroke: A randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Network meta-analysis of different electrical stimulation therapies for lower limb functional rehabilitation in stroke patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of kilohertz versus low-frequency electrical stimulation of the wrist extensors in patients after stroke: A randomized crossover trial.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectrical stimulation is an effective treatment method for improving motor function after stroke, but the optimal current type for patients with stroke and arm paresis remains unclear.
objectiveTo compare the effects of kilohertz frequency with low-frequency current on stimulation efficiency, electrically induced force, discomfort, and muscle fatigue in patients with stroke.
designA randomized crossover study.
settingNeurological inpatient rehabilitation clinic in Germany.
participantsA total of 23 patients with arm paresis after stroke within the last 6 months were recruited, 21 were enrolled, and 20 completed the study (7 females; mean ± SD: 66 ± 12 years; 176 ± 11 cm; 90 ± 19 kg; 57 ± 34 days since stroke).
interventionAll patients underwent both kilohertz and low-frequency stimulation in a randomized order on 2 days (48-hour washout). Each day included a step protocol with a gradual increase in stimulation intensity, starting at the first measurable force (up to 12 steps, 1 mA increments, 8 seconds stimulation, 60 second rest) and a fatigue protocol (30 repetitions, 8 second stimulation, 3 second rest).
main outcome measurePrimary outcome was stimulation efficiency (electrically induced force/stimulation intensity) [N/mA], measured during each step of the stepwise increase in current intensity protocol.
resultsLinear-mixed-effects models showed significantly higher stimulation efficiency for low-frequency stimulation (mean difference 0.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.27 N/mA], p = .031). However, current type did not significantly affect electrically induced force, level of discomfort, or muscle fatigue (p > .05).
conclusionThe findings suggest that low-frequency stimulation is more efficient than kilohertz-frequency stimulation. However, both current types yield similar effects on force, discomfort, and fatigue, making them both viable options for wrist extensor stimulation in patients after stroke. Considering the variability among individuals, customizing the current type based on electrically induced force and perceived discomfort may enhance therapeutic outcomes. Further research on the long-term treatment effects of both current types is warranted.
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.