Dominic O'Connor1,2, Brian Caulfield3, Olive Lennon4. 1. The Insight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Centre for Science, University College Dublin Belfield Campus, Dublin, Ireland. dominic.oconnor@insight-centre.org. 2. UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. dominic.oconnor@insight-centre.org. 3. The Insight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Centre for Science, University College Dublin Belfield Campus, Dublin, Ireland. 4. UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to (1) summarise and critically evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on indices of health and quality of life (QoL) in adult cancer survivors, (2) assess the safety of NMES as a rehabilitation method in this population, and (3) identify commonly used NMES treatment parameters and describe treatment progression. METHODS: A systematic search of four electronic databases targeted studies evaluating the effects of NMES on physical function, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in adult cancer survivors, published through March 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Meta-analyses found that the overall pooled effect favoured NMES for improving muscle strength, but the standardised mean difference was not significant (0.36; 95% CI - 0.25, 0.96). Further meta-analyses indicated that NMES significantly improved HR-QoL (0.36; 95% CI 0.10, 0.62), with notable gains identified under the subcategories QoL Function (0.87; 95% CI 0.32, 1.42). Current NMES prescription is not standardised and NMES is prescribed to target secondary complications of treatment. Risk of bias was high for most studies. CONCLUSIONS: NMES use in adult cancer survivors is an emerging field and current literature is limited by studies of poor quality and a lack of adequately powered RCTs. Existing evidence suggests that NMES is safe and may be more effective than usual care for improving HR-QoL. Prescription and progression should be tailored for the individual based on functional deficits.
PURPOSE: This study aims to (1) summarise and critically evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on indices of health and quality of life (QoL) in adult cancer survivors, (2) assess the safety of NMES as a rehabilitation method in this population, and (3) identify commonly used NMES treatment parameters and describe treatment progression. METHODS: A systematic search of four electronic databases targeted studies evaluating the effects of NMES on physical function, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in adult cancer survivors, published through March 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Meta-analyses found that the overall pooled effect favoured NMES for improving muscle strength, but the standardised mean difference was not significant (0.36; 95% CI - 0.25, 0.96). Further meta-analyses indicated that NMES significantly improved HR-QoL (0.36; 95% CI 0.10, 0.62), with notable gains identified under the subcategories QoL Function (0.87; 95% CI 0.32, 1.42). Current NMES prescription is not standardised and NMES is prescribed to target secondary complications of treatment. Risk of bias was high for most studies. CONCLUSIONS: NMES use in adult cancer survivors is an emerging field and current literature is limited by studies of poor quality and a lack of adequately powered RCTs. Existing evidence suggests that NMES is safe and may be more effective than usual care for improving HR-QoL. Prescription and progression should be tailored for the individual based on functional deficits.
Authors: Wolfgang Gruther; Franz Kainberger; Veronika Fialka-Moser; Tatjana Paternostro-Sluga; Michael Quittan; Christian Spiss; Richard Crevenna Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Shiraz I Mishra; Roberta W Scherer; Claire Snyder; Paula M Geigle; Debra R Berlanstein; Ozlem Topaloglu Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: Richard Crevenna; Winfried Mayr; Mohammad Keilani; Johannes Pleiner; Martin Nuhr; Michael Quittan; Richard Pacher; Veronika Fialka-Moser; Michael Wolzt Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2003-10-31 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Eva Maria Strasser; Stefan Stättner; Josef Karner; Martin Klimpfinger; Matthias Freynhofer; Vera Zaller; Alexandra Graf; Barbara Wessner; Norbert Bachl; Erich Roth; Michael Quittan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Caitlin Mason; Catherine M Alfano; Ashley Wilder Smith; Ching-Yun Wang; Marian L Neuhouser; Catherine Duggan; Leslie Bernstein; Kathy B Baumgartner; Richard N Baumgartner; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Anne McTiernan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dominic O'Connor; Matilde Mora Fernandez; Gabriel Signorelli; Pedro Valero; Brian Caulfield Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael J Toth; Thomas B Voigt; Timothy W Tourville; Shannon M Prior; Blas A Guigni; Axel V Schlosberg; Isaac B Smith; Taylor J Forest; Peter A Kaufman; Marie E Wood; Hibba Rehman; Kim Dittus Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Gabriel Ruiz Signorelli; Fedor Lehocki; Matilde Mora Fernández; Gillian O'Neill; Dominic O'Connor; Louise Brennan; Francisco Monteiro-Guerra; Alejandro Rivero-Rodriguez; Santiago Hors-Fraile; Juan Munoz-Penas; Mercè Bonjorn Dalmau; Jorge Mota; Ricardo B Oliveira; Bela Mrinakova; Silvia Putekova; Naiara Muro; Francisco Zambrana; Juan M Garcia-Gomez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 5.428