ReviewNeurology international2026
Effectiveness of Electrical Stimulation on Upper Limb Function During the Acute Phase of Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Neurology international, 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesStroke remains a leading cause of global disability, with upper limb impairment affecting over 80% of patients. During the acute phase (first seven days), a critical neuroplastic window exists where interventions may significantly influence recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of electrical stimulation-specifically Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES)-on upper limb functional recovery and complication prevention during the acute phase of stroke.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across eight databases (including Medline, PEDRo, and Cochrane) for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials published between 2016 and 2025. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDRo scale. Quantitative synthesis was performed via meta-analysis using a random-effects model, focusing on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE).
resultsEight randomized clinical trials were selected with a total of 384 participants. The meta-analysis results showed a positive and statistically significant effect in favor of the experimental group compared to the control group (Z = 2.39;
conclusionsElectrical stimulation shows a positive trend in early stroke recovery; however, it should be considered a promising adjunct rather than a definitive treatment. Further research into standardized protocols is required to confirm their clinical significance.
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.