MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1864125311 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003687

Electrical stimulation for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

2002· review· en· W1864125311 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Pelland, Lucie Brosseau, Lynn Casimiro, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCINAHLMEDLINEPhysical therapyMeta-analysisRehabilitationPsycINFOPsychological interventionPlaceboPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation is one of several rehabilitation interventions suggested for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to enhance muscle performance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for improving muscle strength and function in clients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar, Sports Discus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the PEDro database, the specialized registry of the Cochrane musculoskeletal group and the Cochrane field of physical and related therapies up to January 2002 according to the sensitive search strategy for RCTs designed for the Cochrane Collaboration. The search was complemented with handsearching of the reference lists. Key experts in the area were contacted for further articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), case-control and cohort studies comparing ES against placebo or another active intervention in patients with RA were selected, according to an a priori protocol. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers determined the studies to be included based on a priori inclusion criteria. Data were independently abstracted by the same two reviewers, and checked by a third reviewer using a pre-developed form. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale, independently assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. The data analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Of the two relevant studies that were identified in the literature, only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. This RCT compared the effects of two electrostimulation (ES) protocols on hand function in general and on the performance of the first dorsal interosseous muscle in particular, in 15 patients with RA and secondary disuse atrophy of the first dorsal interosseous of the dominant hand. The results showed that ES had significant benefit when compared to a control no treatment group in terms of muscle strength and fatigue resistance of the first dorsal interosseous. Most favourable results were obtained by using a patterned stimulation derived from a fatigued motor unit of the first dorsal interosseous in a normal hand rather than a fixed 10 Hz stimulation frequency. Side effects of the ES application were not reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: ES was shown to have a clinically beneficial effect on grip strength and fatigue resistance for RA patients with muscle atrophy of the hand. However, these conclusions are limited by the low methodological quality of the trial included. More well-designed studies are therefore needed to provide further evidence of the benefits of ES in the management of RA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207