Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive care units’ acquired muscle weakness is present in approximately 50% of the patients. Although active muscle training can attenuate weakness, a large proportion of critical patients cannot participate in any active mobilization. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation may be an alternative strategy to reverse muscle weakness. The objective of the study was to review the scientific publications on the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and its parameters and the main results in patients hospitalized in intensive care units. This is an integrative review surveying studies in online databases. The studies were selected from the following descriptors: neuromuscular electrical stimulation AND parameters AND intensive care units AND muscle weakness. The inclusion criteria included articles that addressed the topic of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and the parameters used in patients admitted to intensive care units, aged 18 years or older. Exclusion criteria were studies involving animals, case reports, letters to the editor and book chapters. The search comprised articles in the Portuguese, English and Spanish languages from January 2013 to March 2019. Of the 185 articles identified, nine met the eligibility criteria. The studies were evaluated assessing the level of evidence, and the relevant information was presented in the table and discussed. The parameters of the neuromuscular electrical stimulation employed in the studies showed positive results for the maintenance of strength and muscle mass. There was evidence of benefits in the local and systemic microcirculation, potentially mobilizing endothelial stem cells, to prevent atrophy, to reduce mechanical ventilation time and stay in intensive care unit; and when incorporated into the usual physiotherapy care, proved to be more effective than usual care. Its use is safe and viable in critically ill patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".