SynthesisArtificial organs2026
Functional Electrical Stimulation Cycling for Balance Rehabilitation in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Artificial organs, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis review aims to examine the impacts of functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling on balance post-stroke, identify the optimal treatment protocol, if possible, and provide future suggestions for research and clinical practice.
methods"PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science" databases were screened until August 2025. Randomized controlled trials that included stroke survivors who underwent FES cycling, compared with active or passive treatments, and assessed balance impairments were included in this review. Meta-analysis was carried out using "Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4." The quality of the eligible studies was estimated using the PEDro scale.
resultsNine studies met our criteria. In total, 285 stroke patients (mean age 62.46 years; 59% male) were included in this review. The studies ranged from 6 to 9 on the PEDro scale, with a median of 8. The meta-analysis showed that FES cycling was inferior to control interventions for improving balance poststroke. For the Trunk control test, a non-significant improvement was observed (SMD = 0.250, 95% CI: -0.260 to 0.761, p = 0.336, I
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support a beneficial effect of FES cycling on balance poststroke. While commonly used stimulation parameters are physiologically justified, evidence is insufficient to determine optimal FES cycling parameters for improving balance outcomes post-stroke. FES cycling should be tailored to patient characteristics and baseline impairments. Further studies of larger sample sizes are needed.
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.