OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation (FES) in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis in stroke. DESIGN: A meta-analysis combined the reported randomized controlled trials of FES in stroke, using the effect size method of Glass, and the DerSimonian-Laird Random Effects Method for pooling studies. SETTING: The included studies were published between 1978 and 1992. They were conducted in academic rehabilitation medicine settings. PATIENTS: In all included studies, patients were in poststroke rehabilitation. The mean time after stroke varied from 1.5 to 29.2 months. INTERVENTION: FES applied to a muscle or associated nerve in a hemiparetic extremity was compared to No FES. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in paretic muscle force of contraction following FES was compared to change without FES. RESULTS: For the four included studies, the mean effect size was .63 (95% CI: .29, .98). This result was statistically significant (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Pooling from randomized trials supports FES as promoting recovery of muscle strength after stroke. This effect is statistically significant. There is a reasonable likelihood of clinical significance as well.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation (FES) in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis in stroke. DESIGN: A meta-analysis combined the reported randomized controlled trials of FES in stroke, using the effect size method of Glass, and the DerSimonian-Laird Random Effects Method for pooling studies. SETTING: The included studies were published between 1978 and 1992. They were conducted in academic rehabilitation medicine settings. PATIENTS: In all included studies, patients were in poststroke rehabilitation. The mean time after stroke varied from 1.5 to 29.2 months. INTERVENTION: FES applied to a muscle or associated nerve in a hemiparetic extremity was compared to No FES. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in paretic muscle force of contraction following FES was compared to change without FES. RESULTS: For the four included studies, the mean effect size was .63 (95% CI: .29, .98). This result was statistically significant (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Pooling from randomized trials supports FES as promoting recovery of muscle strength after stroke. This effect is statistically significant. There is a reasonable likelihood of clinical significance as well.
Authors: Ethne L Nussbaum; Pamela Houghton; Joseph Anthony; Sandy Rennie; Barbara L Shay; Alison M Hoens Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Alex Pollock; Sybil E Farmer; Marian C Brady; Peter Langhorne; Gillian E Mead; Jan Mehrholz; Frederike van Wijck Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Trisha M Kesar; Ramu Perumal; Angela Jancosko; Darcy S Reisman; Katherine S Rudolph; Jill S Higginson; Stuart A Binder-Macleod Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-11-19
Authors: Richard D Wilson; Stephen J Page; Michael Delahanty; Jayme S Knutson; Douglas D Gunzler; Lynne R Sheffler; John Chae Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.919