Cited by 202Intensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in Aging

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for preventing skeletal-muscle weakness and wasting in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Open access
Maffiuletti, Nicola A, Roig, Marc, Karatzanos, Eleftherios, Nanas, Serafim·2013·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) therapy may be useful in early musculoskeletal rehabilitation during acute critical illness. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of NMES for preventing skeletal-muscle weakness and wasting in critically ill patients, in comparison with usual care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PEDro to identify randomized controlled trials exploring the effect of NMES in critically ill patients, which had a well-defined NMES protocol, provided outcomes related to skeletal-muscle strength and/or mass, and for which full text was available. Two independent reviewers extracted data on muscle-related outcomes (strength and mass), and participant and intervention characteristics, and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Owing to the lack of means and standard deviations (SDs) in some studies, as well as the lack of baseline measurements in two studies, it was impossible to conduct a full meta-analysis. When means and SDs were provided, the effect sizes of individual outcomes were calculated, and otherwise, a qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: The search yielded 8 eligible studies involving 172 patients. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to high. Five studies reported an increase in strength or better preservation of strength with NMES, with one study having a large effect size. Two studies found better preservation of muscle mass with NMES, with small to moderate effect sizes, while no significant benefits were found in two other studies. CONCLUSIONS: NMES added to usual care proved to be more effective than usual care alone for preventing skeletal-muscle weakness in critically ill patients. However, there is inconclusive evidence for its benefit in prevention of muscle wasting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1741-7015-11-137

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pulse frequencies used in skin surface stimulation are generally in the range of 8 to 100 Hz, and therefore below frequency ranges commonly observed in neural stimulation.

    “Pulse frequencies used in skin surface stimulation are generally in the range of 8 to 100 Hz [102], and therefore below frequency ranges commonly observed in neural stimulation (see Table 4).”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [102]

    The Results > Interventions section reports stimulation frequencies of 8–100 Hz in the NMES studies reviewed. Those studies involved critically ill patients, so the source does not establish that this is generally the range for skin-surface stimulation. The comparison with neural stimulation follows the citation and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maffiuletti, N. A., Roig, M., Karatzanos, E., & Nanas, S.
Affiliations
  • Schulthess-Klinik (CH)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
Maffiuletti, Nicola A
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2013-05-23
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
137-137
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136166854
Cited by
199
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 5
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Elsass Fonden
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
neuromuscular electrical stimulation, critical illness, skeletal muscle weakness, muscle atrophy, muscle strength, muscle mass, critically ill patients
MeSH terms
Electric Stimulation Therapy, Humans, Neuromuscular Junction, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Critical Illness, Muscle Weakness, Muscle Strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review