MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167707197 · doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00882-8

Functional electrical stimulation cycling exercise after spinal cord injury: a systematic review of health and fitness-related outcomes

2021· review· en· W3167707197 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster University
FundersTHIS Institute, University of CambridgeVrije Universiteit AmsterdamLoughborough UniversityUniversity of AlbertaFaculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCINAHLPhysical therapyCyclingRehabilitationFunctional electrical stimulationCritical appraisalElectrical muscle stimulationAerobic exercisePsychological interventionSpinal cordStimulationInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to summarize and appraise evidence on functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling exercise after spinal cord injury (SCI), in order to inform the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL were searched up to April 2021 to identify FES cycling exercise intervention studies including adults with SCI. In order to capture the widest array of evidence available, any outcome measure employed in such studies was considered eligible. Two independent reviewers conducted study eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal using Cochranes' Risk of Bias or Downs and Black tools. Each study was designated as a Level 1, 2, 3 or 4 study, dependent on study design and quality appraisal scores. The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE ratings ('High', 'Moderate', 'Low', or 'Very low'). RESULTS: Ninety-two studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 999 adults with SCI representing all age, sex, time since injury, lesion level and lesion completeness strata. For muscle health (e.g., muscle mass, fiber type composition), significant improvements were found in 3 out of 4 Level 1-2 studies, and 27 out of 32 Level 3-4 studies (GRADE rating: 'High'). Although lacking Level 1-2 studies, significant improvements were also found in nearly all of 35 Level 3-4 studies on power output and aerobic fitness (e.g., peak power and oxygen uptake during an FES cycling test) (GRADE ratings: 'Low'). CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that FES cycling exercise improves lower-body muscle health of adults with SCI, and may increase power output and aerobic fitness. The evidence summarized and appraised in this review can inform the development of the first international, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of FES cycling exercise in clinical and community settings of adults with SCI. Registration review protocol: CRD42018108940 (PROSPERO).

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.

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)0.004
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.359 · 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