Benefits of home-based foot neuromuscular electrical stimulation on self-reported function, leg pain and other leg symptoms among community-dwelling older adults: a sham-controlled randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Lower leg pain and symptoms, and poor leg circulation are common in older adults. These can significantly affect their function and quality of life. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) applied via the feet as ‘foot NMES’ activates the leg musculovenous pump. This study investigated the effects of foot NMES administered at home using Revitive® among community-dwelling older adults with lower leg pain and/or other lower leg symptoms such as cramps, or sensations of tired, aching, and heavy feeling legs. Methods A randomised placebo-controlled study with three groups (2 NMES, 1 Sham) and three assessments (baseline, week 8, week 12 follow-up) was carried out. Self-reported function using Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM), leg pain, overall leg symptoms score (heaviness, tiredness, aching, or cramps), and ankle blood flow were assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression were used to compare the groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (two-sided 5%). Results Out of 129 participants enrolled, 114 completed the study. The improvement in all outcomes were statistically significant for the NMES interventions compared to Sham at both week 8 (p < 0.01) and week 12 (p < 0.05). The improvement in COPM met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the NMES interventions compared to Sham at both week 8 (p < 0.005) and week 12 (p < 0.05). Improvement in leg pain met MCID at week 8 compared to Sham (p < 0.05). Ankle blood flow increased approximately 3-fold during treatment compared to Sham. Compliance with the interventions was high and no device-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions The home-based foot NMES is safe, and significantly improved self-reported function, leg pain and overall leg symptoms, and increased ankle blood flow compared to a Sham among older adults. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in ISRCTN on 17/06/2019 with registration number ISRCTN10576209. It can be accessed at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10576209 .
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".