Table 14.1 Functional Electrical Stimulation Systematic Reviews

Author Year

Country

Total Sample Size

Methods Outcome

 

Patil et al.,

2015

UK

Review of published articles between September 2009-September 2014

N= 5

 

Method: Comprehensive literature search of full-length, peer reviewed studies of patients with complete or incomplete cervical SCI, investigating functional electrical stimulation (FES) (possibly comparing to other conventional therapies) in adult and human studies.

Databases: EMBASE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Food, Science and Technology abstracts.

Level of evidence:  Jovell and Navarro-Rubio classification: Good (I-II): Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Large-sample RCTs; Good-to-fair (III-V): Small-sample RCTS, non-randomized controlled prospective trials, non-randomized controlled retrospective trials; Fair (VI-VII): cohort studies, case-control studies; Poor (VIII-IX): non-controlled clinical series; descriptive studies, anecdotes or case reports.

Questions/measures/hypothesis:

Examine the evidence for FES on motor control and functional ability of the upper limb in spinal cord injured people.

1.     Two studies were scored a III, one study scored a VI, and two studies scored VIII.

2.     In total, there were 10 different outcome measures between the five included studies assessing functional outcomes and motor control.

3.     All 5 studies reported improvement, both immediate and follow-up, in motor control and functional ability of upper extremity as result of FES or FES with conventional therapy.

top