ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A604 ELECTRICAL STIMULATION IMPROVES STRENGTH AND ACTIVITY AFTER STROKE: FINDINGS FROM A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Abstract Background and aims Electrical stimulation is commonly used for motor rehabilitation after stroke, but its benefits and harms were uncertain. The aim of our systematic review was to evaluate whether electrical stimulation improves strength and activity, compared with sham, no intervention, or alternative approaches. We also examined effects on participation, quality of life, and adverse events. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four additional databases, two trial registries, and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials involving adults with stroke receiving cyclic electrical stimulation or functional electrical stimulation were included. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results 83 randomized controlled trials and 6 randomized cross-over trials (n = 2905 participants) were included; 34 trials investigated cyclic electrical stimulation (n = 1176 participants), and 55 trials investigated functional electrical stimulation (n = 1729 participants). Cyclic electrical stimulation showed a moderate effect on strength (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.61) and activity (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.65). Functional electrical stimulation showed a small effect on activity (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.34). Adverse events were rare and minor. Conclusions Cyclic electrical stimulation can increase strength and improve activity after stroke. Functional electrical stimulation provides small additional benefit for activity once voluntary movement returns. Evidence for participation and quality of life remains limited. Conflict of interest Katharine Scrivener: nothing to disclose; Louise Ada: nothing to disclose; Joanne Glinsky: nothing to disclose; Simone Dorsch: nothing to disclose; Serena Jamieson: nothing to disclose; Sarah Brighton-Hall: nothing to disclose; Laura McCredie: nothing to disclose; Ashleigh Hanekom: nothing to disclose; Natasha A. Lannin: nothing to disclose.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Stroke Journal
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/esj/aakag023.038
Primary Topic
Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A604 ELECTRICAL STIMULATION IMPROVES STRENGTH AND ACTIVITY AFTER STROKE: FINDINGS FROM A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Serena Jamieson, Louise Ada, Laura McCredie, Simone Dorsch et al.
European Stroke Journal
Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A604 ELECTRICAL STIMULATION IMPROVES STRENGTH AND ACTIVITY AFTER STROKE: FINDINGS FROM A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Serena Jamieson, Louise Ada, Laura McCredie, Simone Dorsch, Ashleigh Hanekom, Joanne Glinsky, Sarah Brighton-Hall, Natasha Lannin, Katharine Scrivener
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims Electrical stimulation is commonly used for motor rehabilitation after stroke, but its benefits and harms were uncertain. The aim of our systematic review was to evaluate whether electrical stimulation improves strength and activity, compared with sham, no intervention, or alternative approaches. We also examined effects on participation, quality of life, and adverse events. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four additional databases, two trial registries, and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials involving adults with stroke receiving cyclic electrical stimulation or functional electrical stimulation were included. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results 83 randomized controlled trials and 6 randomized cross-over trials (n = 2905 participants) were included; 34 trials investigated cyclic electrical stimulation (n = 1176 participants), and 55 trials investigated functional electrical stimulation (n = 1729 participants). Cyclic electrical stimulation showed a moderate effect on strength (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.61) and activity (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.65). Functional electrical stimulation showed a small effect on activity (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.34). Adverse events were rare and minor. Conclusions Cyclic electrical stimulation can increase strength and improve activity after stroke. Functional electrical stimulation provides small additional benefit for activity once voluntary movement returns. Evidence for participation and quality of life remains limited. Conflict of interest Katharine Scrivener: nothing to disclose; Louise Ada: nothing to disclose; Joanne Glinsky: nothing to disclose; Simone Dorsch: nothing to disclose; Serena Jamieson: nothing to disclose; Sarah Brighton-Hall: nothing to disclose; Laura McCredie: nothing to disclose; Ashleigh Hanekom: nothing to disclose; Natasha A. Lannin: nothing to disclose.

European Stroke JournalVol. 11(Supplement_1)
The University of Sydney (AU), New South Wales Department of Health (AU), Alfred Health (AU), Monash University (AU), Australian Catholic University (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.