Effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Kazuki Okura, Tadayoshi Nonoyama, Manaka Shibuya, Shuhei Yamamoto, Shohei Kawachi, Kenichi Nishie, Katsutoshi Nakayama","doi":"10.1002/pri.2076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and accessibility of NMES and compared them with usual care in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD by searching databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with COPD who were treated within 3 weeks of acute exacerbation onset were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tools. We pooled limb muscle strength and adverse events and performed a comparison between NMES and usual care. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs, including 168 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis showed that limb muscle strength was significantly higher in the NMES group (four studies with 148 patients; standardized mean difference, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.30; p < 0.001). The quality of evidence was very low due to the risk of bias within the studies, imprecision of the estimates, and small number of studies. Any adverse events served as outcomes in three studies (86 patients), although no adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NMES is safe for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD and may maintain and improve limb muscle strength; however, the quality of evidence was very low.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"29 2","pages":"e2076"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and accessibility of NMES and compared them with usual care in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD by searching databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with COPD who were treated within 3 weeks of acute exacerbation onset were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tools. We pooled limb muscle strength and adverse events and performed a comparison between NMES and usual care. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Results: Five RCTs, including 168 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis showed that limb muscle strength was significantly higher in the NMES group (four studies with 148 patients; standardized mean difference, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.30; p < 0.001). The quality of evidence was very low due to the risk of bias within the studies, imprecision of the estimates, and small number of studies. Any adverse events served as outcomes in three studies (86 patients), although no adverse events occurred.
Conclusion: NMES is safe for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD and may maintain and improve limb muscle strength; however, the quality of evidence was very low.
期刊介绍：
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
