A randomised controlled trial of integrated electrical stimulation and physiotherapy to improve mobility for people less than 6 months post stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of combining physiotherapy and functional electrical stimulation to improve gait post stroke. METHODS: A parallel group partially single-blinded randomised clinical trial. Adults living at home, less than 6 months post stroke, were randomised to Group A (physiotherapy, n = 10) or Group B (physiotherapy and common peroneal nerve stimulation, n = 10). Assessments were conducted before randomisation (Week 1), after intervention (Week 8) and after 12 weeks follow-up (Week 20). RESULTS: No between group differences were observed. There were statistically significant within group differences after the intervention period in both groups for walking speed and distance walked (without stimulation), Rivermead Mobility Index and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, maintained at Week 20. There was statistically significant improvement in 10-m walking speed (Group B) when the stimulator was used at Week 8 (p = 0.03, median 0.04 m/s (8%)). Only Group B had statistically significant within group change in Rivermead Visual Gait Analysis (Week 8), maintained at Week 20. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating electrical stimulation and physiotherapy was feasible and improved walking speed. There was no evidence of a training effect compared with physiotherapy alone. One-hundred forty-four participants per group would produce an adequately powered study based on this protocol. Implications for Rehabilitation At the end of the intervention period participants using electrical stimulation to correct dropped foot walked faster. It was feasible for electrical stimulation to be combined with physiotherapy for people less than 6 months post stroke. A larger adequately powered study is required to establish whether there are training effects associated with use of stimulation in this population.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".