SynthesisFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024
Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep Disorders and Perioperative Stroke: A Global Bibliometric Analysis from 1999 to 2024.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
- Comparative effects of 2 Hz vs. 100 Hz transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on upper limb motor function post-stroke: design and rationale for a randomized trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Task-specific cortical mechanisms of taVNS-paired task-oriented training for post-stroke upper extremity dysfunction under cognitive load: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is an innovative, non-invasive therapy that stimulates the contraction of paralyzed muscles in the upper limbs, promoting functional recovery. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of TEAS in restoring upper limb function. This study aims to evaluate the impact of TEAS on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the influence of TEAS on upper limb motor recovery after stroke and improve the quality of life in such patients. Methods: Eight databases were systematically searched from inception to 1st October 2024. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening and data extraction of the study. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), which evaluates upper extremity motor function in stroke patients. Secondary outcomes included the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) for assessing spasticity and the Modified Barthel Index (MBI) to evaluate patients' abilities to perform activities of daily living. Data synthesis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0. The GRADE method was employed to assess the quality of evidence. Results: A total of 16 trials involving 1,218 stroke patients were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that the TEAS significantly improved upper limb function (SMD = 1.70, 95CI% = 1.09 to 2.31, Conclusion: Our results indicated that TEAS improved motor function and functional activities and reduced muscle tone in the upper limbs after stroke. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited strength of the evidence. High-quality, larger sample, multi-center studies are needed to validate these preliminary findings. Systematic review registration: This study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42024592509. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024592509.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.