ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Peripheral Sensory Electrical Stimulation Combined With Handwriting Practice on Nondominant Handwriting Skills in Adults: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- fNIRS-Based Network Signatures of Sensory-Primed Bilateral Arm Training in Subacute Stroke Recovery.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Tracing letters is recognized in occupational therapy as an effective method for improving writing skills with the non-dominant hand. Additionally, peripheral sensory nerve electrical stimulation (PES) increases corticospinal tract excitability and enhances the acquisition and retention of motor skills. This study aimed to investigate whether combining character tracing with PES can improve non-dominant handwriting ability in adults. Methods The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: handwriting with PES (PES group), handwriting only (non-PES group), and a control group. All participants were instructed to copy a sample character using a ballpoint pen with their non-dominant hand at baseline and five days after the intervention. The primary outcome was character quality assessed using computer-based character recognition software and human-rated global legibility scales. Writing speed during the copying task was the secondary outcome. The intervention groups practiced character tracing for 15 minutes per day for five consecutive days. In the PES group, stimulation was applied for 40 minutes before and 15 minutes during each handwriting session. Outcome data were tested for normality, and non-normally distributed data were log-transformed before analysis. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust for the writing speed. Results ANCOVA revealed a significant improvement in character quality in the PES group compared with that in the control group after the intervention. However, no significant differences were observed between the PES and non-PES groups or between the non-PES and control groups. Conclusion When adjusted for writing speed, handwriting practice combined with PES significantly improved non-dominant handwriting quality compared with no intervention. However, PES alone did not demonstrate a clear additional benefit over handwriting practice.
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.