SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Effects of electrical stimulation on lower limb function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the therapeutic effects of different electrical stimulation modalities combined with rehabilitation training on lower limb function improvement in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2, 2026, and a meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to evaluate the included studies (PROSPERO registration number: CRD420261364272).
resultsA total of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 629 patients were included. Traditional meta-analysis showed that electrical stimulation combined with rehabilitation training was significantly superior to rehabilitation training alone in Visual Analog Scale (SMD = -0.596, 95% CI -0.990 to -0.202) and range of motion (SMD = 0.716, 95% CI 0.138 to 1.294), but showed no significant difference in International Knee Documentation Committee (MD = 1.931, 95% CI -3.663 to 7.526, P = 0.499). Network meta-analysis revealed that neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly improved Visual Analog Scale (SMD = -0.837, 95% CI -1.420 to -0.254) and range of motion (SMD = 1.274, 95% CI 0.927 to 1.622) compared with rehabilitation alone, and was superior to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in range of motion (SMD = -1.185, 95% CI -1.717 to -0.653). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that neuromuscular electrical stimulation ranked first for Visual Analog Scale (92.5%) and range of motion (99.9%). No significant difference was found compared with rehabilitation alone for International Knee Documentation Committee scores (P > 0.05).
conclusionElectrical stimulation combined with rehabilitation training can effectively improve Visual Analog Scale and range of motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, with neuromuscular electrical stimulation demonstrating the optimal effect, although its improvement on International Knee Documentation Committee was limited. Based on the current evidence, rehabilitation training combined with neuromuscular electrical stimulation is recommended as an adjunctive treatment protocol.
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.