Options
The efficacy and prescription of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Author(s)
Date Issued
2018-12
Date Available
2019-07-11T11:32:50Z
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to (1) summarise and critically evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on indices of health and quality of life (QoL) in adult cancer survivors, (2) assess the safety of NMES as a rehabilitation method in this population, and (3) identify commonly used NMES treatment parameters and describe treatment progression.
Methods: A systematic search of four electronic databases targeted studies evaluating the effects of NMES on physical function, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in adult cancer survivors, published through March 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study.
Results: Nine studies were included. Meta-analyses found that the overall pooled effect favoured NMES for improving muscle strength, but the standardised mean difference was not significant (0.36; 95% CI − 0.25, 0.96). Further meta-analyses indicated that NMES significantly improved HR-QoL (0.36; 95% CI 0.10, 0.62), with notable gains identified under the subcategories QoL Function (0.87; 95% CI 0.32, 1.42). Current NMES prescription is not standardised and NMES is prescribed to target secondary complications of treatment. Risk of bias was high for most studies.
Conclusions: NMES use in adult cancer survivors is an emerging field and current literature is limited by studies of poor quality and a lack of adequately powered RCTs. Existing evidence suggests that NMES is safe and may be more effective than usual care for improving HR-QoL. Prescription and progression should be tailored for the individual based on functional deficits.
Methods: A systematic search of four electronic databases targeted studies evaluating the effects of NMES on physical function, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, body composition, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in adult cancer survivors, published through March 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study.
Results: Nine studies were included. Meta-analyses found that the overall pooled effect favoured NMES for improving muscle strength, but the standardised mean difference was not significant (0.36; 95% CI − 0.25, 0.96). Further meta-analyses indicated that NMES significantly improved HR-QoL (0.36; 95% CI 0.10, 0.62), with notable gains identified under the subcategories QoL Function (0.87; 95% CI 0.32, 1.42). Current NMES prescription is not standardised and NMES is prescribed to target secondary complications of treatment. Risk of bias was high for most studies.
Conclusions: NMES use in adult cancer survivors is an emerging field and current literature is limited by studies of poor quality and a lack of adequately powered RCTs. Existing evidence suggests that NMES is safe and may be more effective than usual care for improving HR-QoL. Prescription and progression should be tailored for the individual based on functional deficits.
Sponsorship
European Commission Horizon 2020
Other Sponsorship
Insight Research Centre
Type of Material
Journal Article
Publisher
Springer
Journal
Supportive Care in Cancer
Volume
26
Issue
12
Start Page
3985
End Page
4000
Copyright (Published Version)
2018 Springer
Language
English
Status of Item
Peer reviewed
This item is made available under a Creative Commons License
File(s)
No Thumbnail Available
Name
The Efficacy and prescription of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in adult cancer survivors.pdf
Size
488.77 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
3e36b6c3b0f4ac0026b08cd8d7a6de32
Owning collection