ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Muscle energy techniques for post-stroke spasticity: mechanisms and clinical applications.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spasticity is a common and disabling complication after stroke, often leading to progressive joint stiffness, restricted movement, and reduced functional independence. Current management strategies for post-stroke spasticity (PSS) are limited by inconsistent efficacy and a lack of standardized protocols. Muscle energy techniques (MET) have emerged as a promising non-invasive approach, though their mechanisms and clinical value in PSS remain poorly understood. This review summarizes available evidence on MET for PSS based on systematic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang up to November 2025. MET may alleviate PSS through two main routes, namely inhibiting spinal and cortical motor neuron excitability and modulating pain pathways, though the evidence for these mechanisms remains limited and comes mainly from experimental studies. Key clinical studies indicate that MET can reduce muscle tone, improve range of motion, and enhance functional outcomes, with particularly notable effects on upper limb spasticity. However, heterogeneity in treatment protocols and a shortage of high-quality trials limit the strength of current conclusions. We further discussed critical limitations, including the reliance on active patient participation, which may preclude its use in persons with stroke with significant cognitive or motor deficits. Future directions include standardizing treatment protocols and integrating MET with emerging technologies such as biofeedback and brain-computer interfaces. This review offers a mechanistic and clinical framework to support the evidence-based integration of MET into PSS rehabilitation.
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.