Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584164›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2025

Development and testing of range of motion driven motor unit recruitment device for knee rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial.

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Sarika Chaudhary, Shweta Shenoy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Manoj Kumar SharmaMYAS-GNDU Department of Sports Sciences and Medicine, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Sarika ChaudharyMYAS-GNDU Department of Sports Sciences and Medicine, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Shweta ShenoyMYAS-GNDU Department of Sports Sciences and Medicine, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing research on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) identifies two primary control approaches: therapist-operated systems and participant-controlled systems. Therapist-operated NMES devices typically employ switches and potentiometers for control, whereas participant-controlled systems offer diverse input methods, including switches, buttons, joysticks, electromyography electrodes, voice-activated commands, and sip-and-puff devices. A critical limitation of current NMES technology lies in its failure to mimic the body's natural muscle recruitment process during electrical stimulation, resulting in premature fatigue and diminished user engagement. A particularly significant drawback is the absence of joint range-of-motion dependency observed during voluntary movements and active involvement of participant. This limitation prevents precise control over spatial and temporal parameters, such as modulating motor unit recruitment relative to joint position, during neuromuscular rehabilitation. Furthermore, existing devices cannot accurately reproduce the co-contraction dynamics and reciprocal activation patterns seen in synergistic, agonist, and antagonist muscle groups during natural movement. Addressing these challenges requires developing innovative NMES technology capable of activating the neuromuscular system while replicating natural voluntary recruitment patterns. Such advancements would not only improve muscle strengthening outcomes but also enhance participant adherence through more effective cortical and peripheral neuromuscular engagement.•Development of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device to replicate natural neuromuscular activation patterns through bio-inspired stimulation protocols.•Engineered to mitigate existing limitations of conventional NMES systems, optimizing therapeutic applications for neuromuscular re-education and functional recovery.•Integrates muscle synergy principles, enabling synchronized synergistic, agonist and antagonist activation for enhanced cortical and peripheral neuromuscular engagement and optimize functional rehabilitation outcomes.•Advances rehabilitation strategies by combining dual focus on muscular reconditioning and neural adaptation for holistic recovery.•Demonstrates potential to amplify strength gains while fostering neuroplasticity, supporting long-term functional recovery in neuromuscular rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Adaptive neuromuscular electrical stimulationBiofeedback-controlled neuromuscular stimulationBrain-computer interface-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulationClosed-loop neuromuscular electrical stimulationMuscle synergy-based neuromuscular electrical stimulationNeuromuscular electrical stimulationRange of motion driven motor unit recruitment deviceRange of Motion Driven Motor Unit Recruitment Device

Identifiers

PMID40584164
PMCPMC12205816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.