ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Efficacy of functional electrical stimulation at different frequencies for post-stroke foot drop: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of low, medium, and high-frequency functional electrical stimulation (FES) in post-stroke foot drop (FD), aiming to identify optimal frequency parameters for clinical practice. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 90 patients with post-stroke FD admitted between January 2021-December 2023 were grouped based on received FES frequency: low-frequency (20-30 Hz, Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable (all Conclusion: In this retrospective comparative study, medium-frequency (31-40 Hz) FES was associated with optimal efficacy and safety outcomes for post-stroke FD, showing significantly greater improvement in walking speed and lower limb function without added risk. These findings suggest it as a promising parameter for clinical evaluation, though verification by prospective trials is 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.