No Recommendation
No evidence recommendation or consensus-based opinion statement.
Reason: No consensus could be reached
Abdominal FES (v no intervention) on lung volumes in people with SCI who have abdominal muscle weakness or paralysis | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | People with SCI who have abdominal muscle weakness or paralysis | Evidence recommendation No evidence recommendation Reason: No recommendation due to insufficient or inconclusive evidence. | No evidence recommendation or consensus-based opinion statement No recommendation can be made on abdominal FES to improve lung volumes in people with SCI who have abdominal muscle weakness or paralysis. |
||||
I | Abdominal FES | ||||||
C | No intervention | Consensus-based opinion statement No consensus statements Reason: No consensus could be reached |
|||||
O | Lung volume (Litres) | ||||||
SUMMARY | 1 RCT | Mean difference (95% CI): Lung volume in litres 0.4 (0 to 0.9) Favours abdominal FES |
|||||
GRADE Very low certainty ⨁◯◯◯ | Risk of bias Very serious | Inconsistency No serious | Imprecision Serious | Indirectness No serious | Publication bias Serious |
||
ABDOMINAL FES ON LUNG VOLUME: GRADE Evidence to Decision | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PROBLEM | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
DESIRABLE EFFECTS | Trivial | Small | Moderate | Large | Don't know | |
UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS | Large | Moderate | Small | Trivial | Don't know | |
CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
HOW MUCH PEOPLE VALUE THE MAIN OUTCOME | Important uncertainty or variability | Possibly important uncertainty or variability | Probably no important uncertainty or variability | No important uncertainty or variability | ||
BALANCE OF EFFECTS | Favours the Control | Probably favours the Control | Does not favour either the intervention (I) or the comparison (C) | Probably favours the I | Favours the I | Don't know |
RESOURCES REQUIRED | Large costs | Moderate costs | Negligible costs and savings | Moderate savings | Large savings | Don't know |
CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED RESOURCES | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
COST EFFECTIVENESS | Favours the comparison | Probably favours the comparison | Does not favour either the intervention or the comparison | Probably favours the intervention | Favours the intervention | No included studies |
EQUITY | Reduced | Probably reduced | Probably no impact | Probably increased | Increased | Don't know |
ACCEPTABILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
FEASIBILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know |
ABDOMINAL FES FOR LUNG VOLUME: Randomised Controlled Trial Details | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
STUDY | COMPARISON | DOSAGE/DETAILS | PARTICIPANTS | N (Rx/C) | OUTCOME | ROB 2 PEDRo |
CHENG 2006 | NMES plus usual care V Usual Care | NMES 30Hz; pulse width 300µs; on/off 4/4s; Intensity 0 to 100mA. | C4-C7 SCI AIS A, B <3 months post injury | 13/13 | Lung volume (FVC) | Some concerns about Risk of Bias PEDro = 5/10 |
The Australian and NZ SCI Physiotherapy guideline committee was unable to make an evidence based recommendation or consensus based opinion statement on abdominal FES to improve lung volumes in people with SCI.
-
Cheng, P.Chen, C.Wang, C.Chung, C. Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on cough capacity and pulmonary function in patients with acute cervical cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2006 Jan;38(1):32-36.