ArticlePhysical therapy research2026
Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Hemodynamics Compared to Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation.
Article in Physical therapy research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on hemodynamics and obtain basic data to verify the safety of rPMS in healthy adults. Methods: rPMS and NMES were performed for 5 min in the supine position using a maximum-intensity stimulation that did not cause pain in the quadriceps femoris of 20 healthy adult males. Regarding the measurement items, the maximum inferior vena cava diameter (IVCDmax) was measured using an echocardiograph to determine the increase or decrease in venous return. Right atrial pressure (RAP) was estimated from the measured IVCDmax and respiratory collapsibility index to determine the cardiac preload. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) were measured as indicators of cardiovascular response. Results: A significant interaction was observed for IVCDmax (p <0.05). Multiple comparison tests showed no significant change in IVCDmax for NMES but showed a significant increase during stimulation for rPMS (p <0.01). No significant changes were observed in the HR, SBP, or RAP throughout the experiment. Conclusions: rPMS may produce a stronger muscle pump action than NMES, resulting in increased venous return and IVCDmax expansion. However, since rPMS did not significantly change HR, SBP, or RAP, it is suggested that it does not cause excessive hemodynamic stress in healthy participants.
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.