↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
501 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0435-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Eraifej, William Clark, Benjamin France, Sebastian Desando, David Moore

Abstract

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD -0.10; CI [-0.59, 0.38], n = 35). Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding. FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke. PROSPERO: CRD42015025162 , Date:11/08/2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 501 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 501 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 77 15%
Student > Master 72 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 6%
Researcher 29 6%
Student > Postgraduate 27 5%
Other 79 16%
Unknown 187 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 95 19%
Engineering 54 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 9%
Neuroscience 38 8%
Sports and Recreations 12 2%
Other 43 9%
Unknown 213 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2023.
All research outputs
#5,131,117
of 24,268,934 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#996
of 2,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,994
of 314,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#31
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,268,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.