ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Electrical Muscle Stimulation with Russian Current in Chronic Cerebral Ischaemia.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test whether inpatient electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) using Russian current (5 kHz carrier, 50 Hz modulation; 4 s ON/6 s OFF) improves mobility and balance in elderly people with chronic cerebral ischaemia.
designProspective single-centre controlled observational pilot, embedded in routine inpatient rehabilitation; no concealed randomisation (EMS + standard care; sham EMS + standard care; standard care only (control)).
methodsA single-centre controlled observational study with three groups was conducted (EMS n = 27, control n = 10, sham n = 7) with 3-9 sessions over 2 weeks (20 min; quadriceps and calves). Pre/Post Outcomes: Tinetti (balance/gait), Rivermead Mobility Index, Timed Up and Go (TUG), ankle extensor maximal voluntary force (MVF), stabilography (statokinesiogram path length (L), mean velocity of COP (V), sway area (S), and myotonometry; ANOVA, α = 0.05). Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained. Between-group differences in change scores were evaluated descriptively, and no formal hypothesis-testing was planned.
resultsEMS showed significant gains versus control/sham-higher Tinetti total and Rivermead scores, faster TUG, higher MVF, and improved stabilography in the eyes-closed condition (reduced L, V, and S), with good tolerability and no serious adverse events (SAEs).
conclusionsShort-course Russian-current EMS is feasible and associated with clinically meaningful improvements in balance, gait, and strength in elderly patients with chronic cerebral ischaemia; however, larger randomised trials are warranted.
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.