ReviewJournal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls2025
The Use of Electrical Stimulation for Older Adults at Risk for Developing Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulation of satellite cell function to alleviate age-related sarcopenia: Electrical stimulation & Ca²⁺ signaling combined approach.iScience · 2026Review
- Measuring shear wave velocity: a potential tool for early detection of muscle decline in middle aged and older adults with type 2 diabetes.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome in older adults: Causes, consequences, and countermeasures.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compile evidence on the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for improving muscle strength in older adults, with or without systemic pathologies. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2017 and 2023. Eligible studies included: older adults over 55 years, the use of either static stimulation (neuromuscular electrical stimulation NMES) in a stationary position or dynamic stimulation (functional electrical stimulation - FES applied during single or multi-joint movement), examined at least one muscle strength outcome, reported stimulation parameters (e.g., frequency, duration, amplitude), and involved participants with or at risk for sarcopenia. This review included 12 RCTs with Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores ranging from 5-9 (good quality). 9 studies reported significant increase in isometric muscle strength following electrical stimulation. Common parameters were 50-100 Hz with variable intensity and pulse duration. The findings suggest that both dynamic stimulation, or static stimulation delivered prior to strength or endurance training, respectively, proved more effective than static stimulation alone. However, parameter selection varied widely and was often unjustified, highlighting the need for standardization to optimize outcomes in community-dwelling older adults.
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.