SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Effectiveness of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Preventing Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesThis study intended to investigate whether neuromuscular electrical stimulation（NMES） effectively prevents deep vein thrombosis（DVT） of lower limbs.MethodsMajor databases encompassing Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were thoroughly retrieved from their inception to January 1, 2025. Two reviewers separately selected studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of eligible studies. Statistic analyses were executed leveraging Stata 15.0.ResultsA total of 599 studies were searched from databases. After literature screening,14 studies were included in our analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that NMES significantly increased peak venous velocity (PV) (mean difference [MD]) = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.93-1.43). Subgroup analyses confirmed significant improvements in PV across European and Asian populations, with the Geko device, Duo-STIM stimulator, 1 Hz stimulation, and common peroneal nerve stimulation (all P < 0.05). NMES also significantly enhanced ejected volume (EV) (MD = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.21-1.59) and time-averaged mean velocity (TAMEAN). Notably, the Irish subgroup, 36 Hz/1 Hz stimulation, and higher-intensity parameters (32 V voltage, 27 mA current) demonstrated significant efficacy for TAMEAN (all P < .05).All outcomes were statistically significant (P < .05).ConclusionsIn summary, NMES significantly improves the hemodynamics of the veins of lower limbs, though their effects are parameter-dependent and vary across regions. NMES can effectively improve PV, EV, and TAMEAN by optimizing device selection, targeting the common peroneal nerve, and adjusting stimulation parameters (1-36 Hz frequency, 27-32 V voltage).
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.