Trial reportRevista de neurologia2026
Comparison of Continuous and Gait-synchronized Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation During Gait Training in Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Revista de neurologia, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPost-stroke gait dysfunction may involve impaired integration of motor commands, somatosensory feedback, and phase-dependent peripheral sensory input during locomotion. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) combined with gait training may provide additional sensory input, but the relevance of different temporal stimulation profiles remains unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and preliminary clinical signals of continuous and gait-synchronized TENS during gait training in individuals with chronic stroke.
methodsTwenty-four participants with chronic stroke were randomized to continuous stimulation (CS), gait-synchronized stimulation (GS), or sham stimulation during standardized gait training. Participants received 12 intervention sessions over 4 weeks. CS delivered non-phase-specific stimulation, whereas GS delivered stimulation according to stance and swing phases. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 8-week follow-up. The primary longitudinal analysis was conducted in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population using baseline-adjusted linear mixed-effects models, with false discovery rate correction applied to group × time interaction
resultsOne participant withdrew before intervention without baseline assessment; therefore, 23 participants were included in the mITT analysis. Intervention adherence was high, with 99% of scheduled sessions completed, and no intervention-related adverse events were reported. Comfortable gait speed showed no significant group × time interaction. Maximal gait speed and Berg Balance Scale showed nominal group × time interaction effects before correction, but these did not remain significant after false discovery rate correction. No robust group × time interaction effects were observed after correction. Exploratory per-protocol analyses were unadjusted for baseline imbalance and were interpreted as supportive only.
conclusionsContinuous and gait-synchronized TENS combined with standardized gait training were feasible and well tolerated in individuals with chronic stroke. The adjusted analysis did not provide robust evidence of differential clinical effects among stimulation-timing groups after correction for multiple outcome testing. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to determine whether continuous or gait-synchronized TENS provides clinically meaningful benefits during post-stroke gait rehabilitation. CLINICAL
trial registrationNo: KCT0008481. Registered 17 May, 2023, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=24719&search_page=L.
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.