Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: a randomized parallel intervention trial

Open access
Routsi, Christina, Gerovasili, Vasiliki, Vasileiadis, Ioannis, Karatzanos, Eleftherios, Pitsolis, Theodore, Tripodaki, Elli, Markaki, Vasiliki, Zervakis, Dimitrios, Nanas, Serafim·2010·Critical Care
DOI 10.1186/cc8987
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: Critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM) is a common complication of critical illness presenting with muscle weakness and is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation and weaning period. No preventive tool and no specific treatment have been proposed so far for CIPNM. Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has been shown to be beneficial in patients with severe chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of EMS in preventing CIPNM in critically ill patients. Methods: One hundred and forty consecutive critically ill patients with an APACHE II score ≥ 13 were randomly assigned after stratification to the EMS group (n = 68) (age:61 ± 19 years) (APACHE II:18 ± 4, SOFA:9 ± 3) or to the control group (n = 72) (age:58 ± 18 years) (APACHE II:18 ± 5, SOFA:9 ± 3). Patients of the EMS group received daily EMS sessions. CIPNM was diagnosed clinically with the medical research council (MRC) scale for muscle strength (maximum score 60, <48/60 cut off for diagnosis) by two unblinded independent investigators. Duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were recorded. Results: Fifty two patients could be finally evaluated with MRC; 24 in the EMS group and 28 in the control group. CIPNM was diagnosed in 3 patients in the EMS group as compared to 11 patients in the control group (OR = 0.22; CI: 0.05 to 0.92, P = 0.04). The MRC score was significantly higher in patients of the EMS group as compared to the control group [58 (33 to 60) vs. 52 (2 to 60) respectively, median (range), P = 0.04). The weaning period was statistically significantly shorter in patients of the EMS group vs. the control group [1 (0 to 10) days vs. 3 (0 to 44) days, respectively, median (range), P = 0.003]. Conclusions: This study suggests that daily EMS sessions prevent the development of CIPNM in critically ill patients and also result in shorter duration of weaning. Further studies should evaluate which patients benefit more from EMS and explore the EMS characteristics most appropriate for preventing CIPNM. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00882830

Overview

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/cc8987

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Routsi, C., Gerovasili, V., Vasileiadis, I., Karatzanos, E., Pitsolis, T., Tripodaki, E., Markaki, V., Zervakis, D., & Nanas, S.
Venue
Critical Care
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-04-28
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
R74-R74
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/cc8987
OpenAlex
W2008215444
Cited by
321
References
45
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.