Randomized Trial of Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Walking in Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: Effects on Quality of Life and Community Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) therapy has been applied to achieve functional benefits post spinal cord injury (SCI), but little is known about its effects on well-being. OBJECTIVE: Using a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) design (NCT00201968), the effects of a FES-assisted walking intervention on quality of life and participation post SCI were compared to a non-FES exercise program. METHODS: Individuals with chronic (≥18 months) incomplete SCI (level C2 to T12, AIS C or D) were randomized to a FES-assisted walking (intervention) or aerobic/resistance training (control) sessions 3 times a week for 16 weeks. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM), Satisfaction With Life Scale, Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Craig Handicap and Assessment Reporting Technique, Reintegration to Normal Living Index, and perceptions of intervention(s) outcomes were completed at baseline, 4, 6, and 12 months. Repeated measures general linear models were used to assess between-group differences. Perceptions of intervention(s) were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-four individuals were randomized (17 per group); 27 remained at 12 months. The FES group had a significant increase (P < .01) on SCIM mobility subscores (mean [SD] = 17.27 [7.2] to 21.33 [7.6]) compared to the exercise group (mean [SD] = 19.9 [17.1] to 17.36 [5.5]). Although no significant between-group differences were detected for other outcomes, both groups reported positive gains in well-being from trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insight into the perceived benefits acquired by participating in an RCT comparing exercise to FES therapy and serves as a model for pinpointing domains of well-being that could be targeted for assessment in future SCI trials.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".