Evaluating the Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation Used for Foot Drop on Aspects of Health-Related Quality of Life in People with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common degenerative neurologic condition resulting in walking difficulties. Foot drop is a common walking impairment in MS that can affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) can improve walking in people with MS, but its effect on HRQOL is not well established. This review investigated the effect of FES used for foot drop on HRQOL in adults with MS. METHODS: A systematic search was performed using CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and PEDro online databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select eligible studies. Data were extracted, and two reviewers independently rated the quality of the studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project assessment tool. RESULTS: Eight studies were eligible for review; seven were of moderate-to-strong methodological quality and one was weak. Seven studies demonstrated significant positive effects of FES on different aspects of HRQOL as measured by the 29-item Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, 36-item Short Form Health Status Survey, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides preliminary evidence that FES has a positive effect on aspects of HRQOL in people with MS; however, the variety of HRQOL outcomes used makes it difficult to determine definitive conclusions. Future larger-scale randomized studies with long-term follow-up are recommended to better understand the effect of FES on HRQOL. This will inform prescribing decisions and support compliance with FES over the longer-term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".