The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Electrical Stimulation of Acute Fractures: A Narrative Review of Stimulation Protocols and Device Specifications
Open accessAbstract
Orthopedic fractures have a significant impact on patients in the form of economic loss and functional impairment. Beyond the standard methods of reduction and fixation, one adjunct that has been explored since the late 1970s is electrical stimulation. Despite robust evidence for efficacy in the preclinical arena, human trials have mixed results, and this technology is not widely accepted. The purpose of this review is to examine the body of literature supporting electrical stimulation for the purpose of fracture healing in humans with an emphasis on device specifications and stimulation protocols and delineate a minimum reporting checklist for future studies of this type. We have isolated 12 studies that pertain to the administration of electrical stimulation for the purpose of augmenting fracture healing in humans. Of these, one was a direct current electrical stimulation study. Six studies utilized pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and five used capacitive coupling. When examining these studies, the device specifications were heterogenous and often incomplete in what they reported, which rendered studies unrepeatable. The stimulation protocols also varied greatly study to study. To demonstrate efficacy of electrical stimulation for fractures, the authors recommend isolating a fracture type that is prone to nonunion to maximize the electrical stimulation effect, a homogenous study population so as to not dilute the effect of electrical stimulation, and increasing scientific rigor in the form of pre-registration, blinding, and sham controls. Finally, we introduce the critical components of minimum device specification reporting for repeatability of studies of this type.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Electromagnetic fields applied by implanted electrodes allow delivery of the electromagnetic field in a more optimized intensity range for the local tissue.
“Apart from noninvasive electromagnetic field application, electromagnetic fields can also be applied by implanted electrodes (58, 70, 71). This application mode allows the delivery of the electromagnetic field in a more optimized intensity range for the local tissue.”
From Methods to accelerate fracture healing – a narrative review from a clinical perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
Section 6.2 says implanted electrodes can bypass resistive skin and fat, and that direct stimulation at the fracture site provides a more predictable amount of current. It does not establish that implanted electrodes deliver an electromagnetic field within an optimized intensity range; Sections 1 and 4 instead describe magnetic fields as generated by external solenoids. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Nicksic, P. J., Donnelly, D. T., Verma, N., Setiz, A. J., Shoffstall, A. J., Ludwig, K. A., Dingle, A. M., & Poore, S. O.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Poore, Samuel O.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-06-02
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 879187-879187
- ISSN
- 2296-4185 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9201474
- OpenAlex
- W4281766086
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Metals and Alloys › Electromagnetic Effects on Materials
- Keywords
- electrical stimulation, fracture healing, nonunion, pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, capacitive coupling, stimulation protocols, equipment specifications, study reproducibility, orthopedic implants
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