Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of quadriceps muscle strength for NMES versus control.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of quadriceps muscle strength for NMES versus control.

Forest plot of muscle mass for NMES versus control.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of muscle mass for NMES versus control.

Forest plot of exercise performance for NMES versus control.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of exercise performance for NMES versus control.

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 1 Quadriceps muscle strength.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 1 Quadriceps muscle strength.

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 2 Muscle mass.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 2 Muscle mass.

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 3 Exercise performance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control, Outcome 3 Exercise performance.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) versus control for adults with advanced disease for muscle weakness

NMES for adults with advanced disease for muscle weakness

Patient or population: adults with advanced disease for muscle weakness
Settings: hospital, community, or home settings
Intervention: NMES

Control: no intervention (7 studies), placebo NMES (8 studies), or resistance training (1 study)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

NMES

Quadriceps muscle strength
Handheld or fixed dynamometry
Follow‐up: median 6 weeks

The mean change was 0.43 standard deviations from baseline.

The mean change in the intervention groups was 0.53 standard deviations higher (ranging from 0.19 to 0.87 standard deviations higher).

781
(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Safety
Serious adverse events
Follow‐up: median 6 weeks

No serious adverse events related to control interventions reported.

No serious adverse events related to NMES reported.

933
(18 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate3

Safety

Adverse events: Muscle discomfort
Follow‐up: median 6 weeks

0/415 (0%) participants reported muscle discomfort following control interventions.

19/518 (3.7%) participants reported muscle discomfort following NMES.

933

(18 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate3

Muscle mass
Anthropometry, DEXA, ultrasound, computed tomography
Follow‐up: 4 to 9 weeks

The mean change in muscle mass ranged from 0.04 to 0.49 standard deviations from baseline across the different assessment modalities used.

The mean change in muscle mass ranged from 0.09 to 1.01 standard deviations higher across the different assessment modalities used.

314
(8 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low4,5,6,7

Exercise performance ‐ walking distance
6MWT, ISWT, ESWT
Follow‐up: median 6 weeks

The mean change in distance walked was 21, 36, and 37 metres from baseline across the different walking tests used.

The mean change in distance walked was 35, 9, and 64 metres further across the different walking tests used.

788
(13 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low2,7,8,9

Exercise performance ‐ peak oxygen uptake
Follow‐up: median 6 weeks

The mean change in peak oxygen uptake was ‐0.4 mL/min from baseline.

The mean exercise performance ‐ peak oxygen uptake in the intervention groups was 44.8 mL/min higher (95% CI 7.3 lower to 97.0 higher)

109
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low7,9

*The basis for the assumed risk is the mean change from baseline in the control groups. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
6MWT: 6‐minute walk test; CI: confidence interval; DEXA: dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry; ESWT: endurance shuttle walk test; ISWT: incremental shuttle walk test

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded once: the lower 95% CI for the estimate of effect was below what would be considered a small effect (standardised mean difference 0.2).
2Downgraded once: statistical tests indicated a high degree of heterogeneity; I2 values > 0.5.
3Downgraded once: small population size and limitations in reporting of safety data collection.
4Downgraded once: the estimate of effect for this outcome was inconsistent across different assessment modalities.
5Downgraded once: either study participants or outcome assessors were not blinded, but the outcome being assessed was non‐volitional.
6Downgraded once: findings derived from computed tomography were from a single study.
7Downgraded once: wide variance of point estimates, and inconsistency regarding the direction of an effect or whether or not there is an effect.
8Downgraded once: the lower 95% CI for the effect estimate for the 6MWT was below the established minimally important difference.
9Downgraded once: either study participants or outcome assessors were not blinded, and the outcome being assessed was volitional.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) versus control for adults with advanced disease for muscle weakness
Comparison 1. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Quadriceps muscle strength Show forest plot

12

781

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.19, 0.87]

2 Muscle mass Show forest plot

8

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Anthropometry

2

31

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [‐0.05, 1.42]

2.2 Dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DEXA)

3

179

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.20, 0.38]

2.3 Ultrasound

1

52

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.26, 1.39]

2.4 Computed tomography

2

52

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.42, 1.60]

3 Exercise performance Show forest plot

13

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 6‐minute walk test (m) (6MWT)

7

317

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

34.78 [13.52, 56.05]

3.2 Incremental shuttle walk test (m) (ISWT)

3

434

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.72 [‐34.87, 52.31]

3.3 Endurance shuttle walk test (m) (ESWT)

4

452

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

64.13 [‐17.79, 146.05]

3.4 Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (mL/min) (CPET)

4

109

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

44.82 [‐7.34, 96.99]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus control