ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Peroneal Electrical Stimulation and Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Gait Parameters and Ground Clearance Among Stroke Survivors.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke often leads to foot drop and impaired gait due to weak dorsiflexors and poor motor control, resulting in reduced ground clearance and increased fall risk. Effective interventions are needed to improve gait safety and adaptability in poststroke rehabilitation. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation (FES) combined with an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) vs. FES alone on gait parameters and ground clearance in stroke survivors.
participantsThirty stroke survivors with foot drop were randomly allocated into two groups: Group A (FES + AFO) and Group B (FES only). All participants were medically stable and able to walk at least 10 m independently or with minimal assistance.
methodsBoth groups underwent 40-minute intervention sessions, five days per week for three weeks, in addition to conventional gait training. FES was applied to the common peroneal nerve during the swing phase using a foot switch. Group A additionally used a lightweight posterior leaf-spring AFO during gait training and ambulation. Outcome measures included stride length, step length, cadence, ground clearance assessed using the Kinovea application, and dynamic balance assessed using the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant improvements in gait parameters following intervention. However, Group A (FES + AFO) showed greater improvement in DGI scores and ground clearance (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) compared with Group B (FES only) (mean ± SD), with statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05), indicating better gait adaptability and enhanced walking safety.
conclusionThis study suggests that FES combined with AFO is more effective than FES alone in improving gait parameters and ground clearance in stroke survivors. Its novelty lies in the objective Kinovea-based assessment of ground clearance along with DGI. However, the findings are limited to short-term effects due to the three-week intervention period, and longer follow-up is needed to confirm sustained outcomes.
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.