ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2026
M-Wave and F-Wave Parameters in Relation to Recording Electrode Placement.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To clarify the influence of recording electrode placement on F-wave parameters, we investigated F-wave parameters recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis muscle using different recording electrode positions.
methodsThirteen healthy volunteers participated. Recording electrodes were placed at four locations (20, 30, 40, and 50 mm from the reference electrode). The stimulating electrode was positioned over the median nerve at the wrist, and the reference electrode was placed on the distal tendon of the abductor pollicis brevis muscle. Stimulation intensity was set at 1.2 times that required to elicit the maximal M-wave amplitude. Thirty stimuli were delivered at 0.5 Hz. Outcome measures included M-wave latency and amplitude, F-wave mean latency and amplitude, F/M amplitude ratio, and F-wave persistence. Data were analyzed using one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance, and effect sizes were calculated using partial η².
resultsM-wave amplitude varied substantially according to recording electrode position (partial η²=0.50). In contrast, effect sizes were small for most F-wave parameters. The F/M amplitude ratio did not reach statistical significance but demonstrated a moderate-to-large effect size (partial η²=0.24). Conclusion: Recording electrode placement substantially affected M-wave amplitude and may also influence the F/M amplitude ratio. Therefore, consistent electrode placement should be maintained when interpreting these parameters in clinical or research settings. However, given the relatively small sample size, clinically meaningful effects on other F-wave parameters cannot be excluded and should be investigated in larger studies.
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.