ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Comparing the effects of different electromagnetic stimulation on lower limb motor impairment after stroke: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Stroke is a leading cause of death and long-term disability worldwide. Most survivors develop multiple functional impairments, with lower limb dysfunction being particularly prevalent and impactful, and has emerged as a key factor undermining patients' quality of life. Electromagnetic stimulation therapy, a potential intervention for post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation, remains controversial regarding its clinical efficacy in current literature. Furthermore, no definitive conclusions exist regarding the comparative advantages of distinct electromagnetic stimulation protocols. Given these controversies and uncertainties, this study aims to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically assess the effects of distinct electromagnetic stimulation protocols on post-stroke lower limb motor function. This analysis further aims to quantify differences in clinical benefits across these protocols and characterize their safety profiles, thereby offering evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making. Methods: We will conduct a systematic search of the following eight databases: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, the VIP Database, the Wanfang Database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database. The search will encompass randomized controlled trials published from the inception of each database until February 15, 2025. Subsequently, two independent reviewers will assess the risk of bias for all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2). We will then perform an NMA using a random-effects model in Stata software to compare the efficacy and safety of various electrical stimulation therapies. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) will be calculated to estimate the comparative benefits and harms of each intervention. Discussion: This evaluation protocol aims to generate evidence on the efficacy of various electromagnetic stimulation regimens for improving clinical symptoms in patients with post-stroke lower limb dysfunction. This evidence will thereby provide a theoretical foundation and practical insights to aid clinicians in optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. Clinical trial registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, identifier [CRD420251247508].
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.