ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Innovative stimulated muscle contraction signals based digital muscle marker: a reliable tool for assessing muscle in persons with stroke.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke leads to motor dysfunction as a result of damage to the central nervous system, often resulting in secondary muscle changes from disuse and immobilization. Existing tools for assessing these muscle changes in persons with stroke are limited, as these methods rely on voluntary muscle contractions, which are frequently impaired in hemiparesis. Additionally, these assessments often require complex and cumbersome equipment. Therefore, a novel system that can address these issues, with high levels of reliability is needed. This study introduces and evaluates the reliability levels of a novel technique using stimulated muscle contraction signals (SMCS)-based digital muscle markers.
methodsSMCS-based digital muscle markers were measured on both thighs of participants with hemiplegic stroke (n = 40). Three trials were conducted by two examiners using the exoPill device, which captures muscle contraction signals induced by electrical stimulation. Isometric knee extensor strength and hand grip strength were measured, and appendicular lean mass was estimated using bioelectrical impedance analysis. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of SMCS-based digital muscle marker measurements was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variance (CV), and 95% limits of agreement (LOA).
resultsThe ICC for both intra- and inter-rater reliability of SMCS-based digital muscle marker measurements exceeded 0.98 on both the affected and unaffected sides. The CV was consistently low, ranging from 1.36% to 3.07% in the unaffected leg, and remained under 3% in the affected leg. Bland-Altman plots confirmed consistent agreement, with most measurements falling within the 95% LOA and no systematic bias were observed. Mean differences for intra- and inter-rater assessments ranged from - 0.43 to 0.25 for the unaffected leg and from 0.00 to 0.05 for the affected leg. Spearman correlation coefficient showed moderate to good correlation (ρ = 0.50) between SMCS-based digital muscle markers and knee extensor strength for both unaffected and affected leg, and good to excellent correlations (ρ = 0.87) between SMCS-based digital muscle markers and leg lean mass.
conclusionsSMCS-based digital muscle markers demonstrated high reliability and significant correlations with muscle strength and mass, suggesting their potential utility for assessing muscle in individuals with stroke.
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.