FES cycling may be provided to treat spasticity in people with SCI.
Electrically stimulated cycling (v no intervention) on spasticity in people with SCI | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | People with SCI | Evidence recommendation No evidence recommendation Reason: No recommendation due to insufficient or inconclusive evidence. | Weak opinion statement FOR FES cycling may be provided to treat spasticity in people with SCI. |
||||
I | Electrically stimulated cycling | ||||||
C | No intervention | Consensus-based opinion statement Weak for (100%) |
|||||
O | Spasticity | ||||||
SUMMARY | 1 RCT (see reference) | ¬Mean difference (95% CI): Spasticity on the Ashworth Scale -2 (-4 to 1) Favours FES cycling |
|||||
GRADE Very low certainty ⨁◯◯◯ | Risk of bias No serious | Inconsistency Serious | Imprecision Serious | Indirectness Serious | Publication bias Serious |
||
ELECTRICALLY STIMULATED CYCLING ON SPASTICITY: 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 |
ELECTRICALLY STIMULATED CYCLING ON SPASTICITY: Randomised Controlled Trial Details | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
STUDY | COMPARISON | DOSAGE/DETAILS | PARTICIPANTS | N (Rx/C) | OUTCOME | ROB 2 PEDRo |
RALSTON 2013 | ES cycling V No intervention | Four x a week for two weeks (30-45 minutes) | C4 to T10 SCI | 14/14 | Spasticity - Ashworth | Low Risk of Bias PEDro = 8 |
The Australian and NZ SCI Physiotherapy guideline committee recommends FES cycling may be provided to treat spasticity in people with SCI. This is a consensus-based opinion statement supported by the opinions of the experts. There are no randomized controlled trials on this topic. The guideline states:
FES cycling may be provided to treat spasticity in people with SCI.
This statement was formed by considering the opinions of the experts alongside other factors. The other factors that were considered were benefits and harms, values and preferences, resource use, equity, accessibility, and feasibility.
This is a consensus-based opinion statement. Consensus-based opinion statements are less robust than evidence-based recommendations. They can be strong or weak. This is a weak consensus-based opinion statement which means that the guideline panel is confident they can probably recommend FES cycling to treat spasticity in people with SCI. based on opinion.
To learn more about this recommendation go to the research summary.
-
Ralston KE, Harvey LA, Batty J, et al. Functional electrical stimulation cycling has no clear effect on urine output, lower limb swelling, and spasticity in people with spinal cord injury: a randomised cross-over trial [with consumer summary]. Journal of Physiotherapy 2013 Dec;59(4):237-243