Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Spatially distributed sequential stimulation applied to the paralyzed quadriceps muscles while performing motor-assisted FES cycling.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) demonstrated greater fatigue-reducing ability and power output when performing isometric or isokinetic contractions of the paralyzed quadriceps muscles compared to the equivalent conventional functional electrical stimulation (FES) in a single electrode stimulation (SES) configuration. The present study aims to systematically assess the power output and fatigue-reducing properties of SDSS versus SES applied to the paralyzed quadriceps muscles of subjects performing motor-assisted FES cycling. Four subjects (three with spinal cord injury and one with multiple sclerosis) without lower-limb motor function participated in two multiday experimental sessions, each with both SDSS and SES stimulation phases. The results of the present study show that muscles stimulated with SDSS produced a significantly higher mean power (10.5 W ± 1.2 W) compared to SES (4.3 W ± 1.4 W), corresponding to an increase of approximately 144%, while inducing a similar amount of muscle fatigue (SDSS: 68.9% ± 8.0% vs. SES: 75.3% ± 13.4%). These findings suggest that SDSS is superior to SES when applied to paralyzed quadriceps muscles of the subjects performing FES cycling using moderate-intensity stimulation. Further research with larger sample size is needed to ascertain these findings and to explore applications of SDSS on FES cycling and FES exercise in general, over longer stimulation sessions under high-intensity stimulation conditions.
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.