Efficacy of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Mitigating Muscle Mass Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Muscle & Nerve Pub Date : 2026-09-04 DOI:10.1002/mus.70396
Yang Jiang, Yemei Gao, Renxian Wang, Bowen Liu
{"title":"Efficacy of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Mitigating Muscle Mass Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Yang Jiang, Yemei Gao, Renxian Wang, Bowen Liu","doi":"10.1002/mus.70396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/aims: </strong>Evidence for the stand-alone effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on muscle mass in adults with sarcopenia or secondary muscle loss remains fragmented. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify this effect and explore whether population, stimulation parameters, and assessment methods modified treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and June 2025. Pooled effect sizes (standardized mean difference, SMD) were calculated using random-effects models (PROSPERO: CRD420251114043).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs involving 676 participants yielded 19 independent effect estimates. NMES improved muscle mass compared with control conditions (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.30-1.02), with substantial heterogeneity. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses did not alter the direction of effect. Subgroup analyses suggested differences by population and assessment method: community-dwelling older adults showed the most consistent benefit, whereas hemodialysis patients showed no clear improvement. CT/DXA-based measures yielded larger estimates than ultrasound-based regional measures or indirect methods. Meta-regression suggested a potential positive association between pulse width and effect size, whereas stimulation site and intervention duration were not clearly associated with treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Low-certainty evidence suggests that NMES may improve muscle mass in selected adults with sarcopenia or secondary muscle loss. Future trials should use standardized NMES protocols, reliable muscle-mass assessments, and clinically meaningful outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":18968,"journal":{"name":"Muscle & Nerve","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Muscle & Nerve","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.70396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/aims: Evidence for the stand-alone effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on muscle mass in adults with sarcopenia or secondary muscle loss remains fragmented. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify this effect and explore whether population, stimulation parameters, and assessment methods modified treatment effects.

Methods: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and June 2025. Pooled effect sizes (standardized mean difference, SMD) were calculated using random-effects models (PROSPERO: CRD420251114043).

Results: Eighteen RCTs involving 676 participants yielded 19 independent effect estimates. NMES improved muscle mass compared with control conditions (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.30-1.02), with substantial heterogeneity. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses did not alter the direction of effect. Subgroup analyses suggested differences by population and assessment method: community-dwelling older adults showed the most consistent benefit, whereas hemodialysis patients showed no clear improvement. CT/DXA-based measures yielded larger estimates than ultrasound-based regional measures or indirect methods. Meta-regression suggested a potential positive association between pulse width and effect size, whereas stimulation site and intervention duration were not clearly associated with treatment effects.

Discussion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that NMES may improve muscle mass in selected adults with sarcopenia or secondary muscle loss. Future trials should use standardized NMES protocols, reliable muscle-mass assessments, and clinically meaningful outcomes.

神经肌肉电刺激减轻肌肉质量损失的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介/目的:神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)对成人肌肉减少症或继发性肌肉损失患者肌肉质量的单独影响的证据仍然不完整。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在量化这种效应,并探讨人群、刺激参数和评估方法是否会改变治疗效果。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆等6个电子数据库,检索2000年1月至2025年6月间发表的随机对照试验(rct)。采用随机效应模型(PROSPERO: CRD420251114043)计算合并效应大小(标准化平均差,SMD)。结果:18项随机对照试验涉及676名受试者,产生19个独立的效应估计。与对照组相比,NMES改善了肌肉质量(SMD = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.30-1.02),存在很大的异质性。留一敏感性分析没有改变影响的方向。亚组分析显示了人群和评估方法的差异:社区居住的老年人显示出最一致的益处,而血液透析患者没有明显的改善。基于CT/ dx的测量比基于超声的区域测量或间接方法产生更大的估计值。meta回归表明脉冲宽度和效应大小之间存在潜在的正相关,而刺激部位和干预时间与治疗效果没有明显的相关性。讨论:低确定性证据表明,NMES可以改善某些患有肌肉减少症或继发性肌肉损失的成年人的肌肉质量。未来的试验应采用标准化的NMES方案、可靠的肌肉质量评估和有临床意义的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Muscle & Nerve
Muscle & Nerve 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
287
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Muscle & Nerve is an international and interdisciplinary publication of original contributions, in both health and disease, concerning studies of the muscle, the neuromuscular junction, the peripheral motor, sensory and autonomic neurons, and the central nervous system where the behavior of the peripheral nervous system is clarified. Appearing monthly, Muscle & Nerve publishes clinical studies and clinically relevant research reports in the fields of anatomy, biochemistry, cell biology, electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, toxicology, and virology. The Journal welcomes articles and reports on basic clinical electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis. We expedite some papers dealing with timely topics to keep up with the fast-moving pace of science, based on the referees'' recommendation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书