MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295183071 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2022.995244

Multi-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing functional electrical stimulation therapy to conventional therapy in incomplete tetraplegia

2022· article· en· W4295183071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim D. Anderson, Radha Korupolu, Kristin E. Musselman, Jacqueline Pierce, James R. Wilson, Nuray Yozbatıran, Naaz Kapadia, Miloš R. Popović, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoImpactUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research and Materiel CommandU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsTetraplegiaMedicineNeurorehabilitationFunctional Independence MeasurePhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialFunctional electrical stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cord injuryStimulationSpinal cordSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Loss of upper extremity function after tetraplegia results in significant disability. Emerging evidence from pilot studies suggests that functional electrical stimulation (FES) therapy may enhance recovery of upper extremity function after tetraplegia. The aim of this trial was to determine the effectiveness of FES therapy delivered by the Myndmove stimulator in people with tetraplegia. Methods: single-blind, parallel-group, two-arm, randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing FES to conventional therapy in adults (≥18 years) with C4-C7 traumatic incomplete tetraplegia between 4 and 96 months post-injury, and with a baseline spinal cord injury independence measure III -self-care (SCIM III-SC) score of ≤10. Participants were enrolled at four SCI-specialized neurorehabilitation centers in the U.S. and Canada. Participants were stratified by center and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 40 sessions of FES or conventional therapy targeting upper extremities over a 14-week period. Blinded assessors measured SCIM III, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test, and Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension at baseline, after 20th session, after 40th session or 14 weeks after 1st session, and at 24 weeks after 1st session. The primary outcome measure was change in SCIM III-SC from baseline to end of the treatment. Based on the primary outcome measure, a sample size of 60 was calculated. Seventeen participants' progress in the study was interrupted due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The protocol was modified for these participants to allow them to complete the study. Results: = 24). Both groups gained a mean of 2 points in SCIM-SC scores at the end of treatment, which was a clinically meaningful change. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups on any outcomes. Conclusion: Forty sessions of FES therapy delivered by the MyndMove stimulator are as effective as conventional therapy in producing meaningful functional improvements that persist after therapy is completed. Limitations of this study include the impact of COVID-19 limiting the ability to recruit the target sample size and per-protocol execution of the study in one-third of the participants. Registration: This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03439319.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207