↓ Skip to main content

Neuromuscular electrostimulation for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neuromuscular electrostimulation for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010821.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie Hill, Vinicius Cavalheri, Sunita Mathur, Marc Roig, Tania Janaudis-Ferreira, Priscila Robles, Thomas E Dolmage, Roger Goldstein

Abstract

In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the use of neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) either alone, or together with conventional exercise training, might improve the condition of the peripheral muscles, increase exercise capacity and functional performance, reduce symptoms and improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To determine the effects of NMES, applied in isolation or concurrently with conventional exercise training to one or more peripheral muscles, on peripheral muscle force and endurance, muscle size, exercise capacity, functional performance, symptoms, HRQoL and adverse events in people with COPD. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, clinical trial registries and conference abstracts on 14 March 2018. Randomised controlled trials that recruited adults with COPD if they had compared outcomes between a group that received NMES and a group that received usual care or compared outcomes between a group that received NMES plus conventional exercise training and a group that participated in conventional exercise training alone. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We expressed continuous data as either the standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria of which 16 contributed data on 267 participants with COPD (mean age 56 to 76 years and 67% were men). Of these 16 studies, seven explored the effect of NMES versus usual care and nine explored the effect of NMES plus conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone. Six studies utilised sham stimulation in the control group. When applied in isolation, NMES produced an increase in peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.65; low-quality evidence) and quadriceps endurance (SMD 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.12; low-quality evidence) but the effect on thigh muscle size was unclear (MD 0.25, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.61; low-quality evidence). There were increases in six-minute walk distance (6MWD) (MD 39.26 m, 95% CI 16.31 to 62.22; low-quality evidence) and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity (MD 3.62 minutes, 95% CI 2.33 to 4.91). There was a reduction in the severity of leg fatigue on completion of an exercise test (MD -1.12 units, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.43). The increase in peak rate of oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was of borderline significance (MD 0.10 L/minute, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19).For NMES with conventional exercise training, there was an uncertain effect on peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence) and there were insufficient studies to undertake a meta-analysis on the effect on quadriceps endurance or thigh muscle size. However, there was an increase in 6MWD in favour of NMES combined with conventional exercise training (MD 25.87 m, 95% CI 1.06 to 50.69; very low-quality evidence). In people admitted to either in an intensive care unit or a respiratory high dependency centre, NMES combined with conventional exercise reduced the time taken for participants to first sit out of bed by 4.98 days (95% CI -8.55 to -1.41; very low-quality evidence), although the statistical heterogeneity for this analysis was high (I2 = 60%). For both types of studies (i.e. NMES versus usual care and NMES with conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone), there was no risk difference for mortality or minor adverse events in participants who received NMES. NMES, when applied in isolation, increased quadriceps force and endurance, 6MWD and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity, and reduced the severity of leg fatigue on completion of exercise testing. It may increase VO2peak, but the true effect on this outcome measure could be trivial. However, the quality of evidence was low or very low due to risk of bias within the studies, imprecision of the estimates, small number of studies and inconsistency between the studies. Although there were no additional gains in quadriceps force with NMES plus conventional exercise training, there was evidence of an increase in 6MWD. Further, in people who were the most debilitated, the addition of NMES may have accelerated the achievement of a functional milestone, that is, the first time someone sits out of bed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 23%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 46 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,051,215
of 15,467,979 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,945
of 11,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,882
of 280,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,467,979 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.