Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2002;2002(2):CD003687.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003687.

Electrical stimulation for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Affiliations
Review

Electrical stimulation for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

L U Brosseau et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002.

Abstract

Background: Electrical stimulation is one of several rehabilitation interventions suggested for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to enhance muscle performance.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for improving muscle strength and function in clients with RA.

Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar, Sports Discus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the PEDro database, the specialized registry of the Cochrane musculoskeletal group and the Cochrane field of physical and related therapies up to January 2002 according to the sensitive search strategy for RCTs designed for the Cochrane Collaboration. The search was complemented with handsearching of the reference lists. Key experts in the area were contacted for further articles.

Selection criteria: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), case-control and cohort studies comparing ES against placebo or another active intervention in patients with RA were selected, according to an a priori protocol. No language restrictions were applied.

Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers determined the studies to be included based on a priori inclusion criteria. Data were independently abstracted by the same two reviewers, and checked by a third reviewer using a pre-developed form. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale, independently assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. The data analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratios.

Main results: Of the two relevant studies that were identified in the literature, only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. This RCT compared the effects of two electrostimulation (ES) protocols on hand function in general and on the performance of the first dorsal interosseous muscle in particular, in 15 patients with RA and secondary disuse atrophy of the first dorsal interosseous of the dominant hand. The results showed that ES had significant benefit when compared to a control no treatment group in terms of muscle strength and fatigue resistance of the first dorsal interosseous. Most favourable results were obtained by using a patterned stimulation derived from a fatigued motor unit of the first dorsal interosseous in a normal hand rather than a fixed 10 Hz stimulation frequency. Side effects of the ES application were not reported.

Reviewer's conclusions: ES was shown to have a clinically beneficial effect on grip strength and fatigue resistance for RA patients with muscle atrophy of the hand. However, these conclusions are limited by the low methodological quality of the trial included. More well-designed studies are therefore needed to provide further evidence of the benefits of ES in the management of RA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known

Figures

1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 1 Grip Strength.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 2 Button Test.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 3 Ulnar Deviation of the Index Finger.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 4 Profundus Pinch Strength.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 5 Superficialis Pinch Strength.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 6 Maximum Voluntary Force Generated by the Index Finger During Isometric Abduction.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 7 Fatigue Resistance of the First Dorsal Interosseous During Sustained Maximum Voluntary Contraction.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 1 Grip strength.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 2 Button test.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 3 Ulnar deviation of the Index finger.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 4 Profundus Pinch Strength.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 5 Superficialis Pinch Strength.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 6 Maximum Voluntary Force Generated by the Index Finger during Isometric Abduction.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned electrical stimulation) versus Placebo (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 7 Fatigue Resistance of the First Dorsal Interosseous During Sustained Maximum Voluntary Contraction.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 1 Grip Strength.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 2 Button test.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 3 Ulnar Deviation of the Index Finger.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 4 Profundus Pinch Strength.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 5 Superficialis Pinch Strength.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 6 Maximum Voluntary Force Generated by the Index Finger During Isometric Abduction.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Electrical Stimulation (Patterned ES) versus Electrical Stimulation (10 Hz) (End of treatment ‐ 10 weeks), Outcome 7 Fatigue Resistance of the First Dorsal Interosseous During Sustained Maximum Voluntary Contraction.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Oldham 1989 {published data only}
    1. Oldham JA, Stanley JK. Rehabilitation of Atrophies Muscle in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Hand: A comparison of two Methods of Electrical Stimulation. Journal of Hand Surgery/ British Volume 1989;14B:294‐297. [21‐EL] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Gotlin 1994 {published data only}
    1. Gotlin RS, Hershkowitz S, Juris PM, Gonzales EG, Scott WN, Install JN. Electrical Stimulation Effect on Extensor Lag and Length of Hospital Stay After Total Knee Arthroplasty. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994;75:957‐959. [34‐EL] - PubMed

Additional references

Clark 1999
    1. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Ferguson D. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale.. Control Clin Trials 1999;20(5):448‐452. - PubMed
Delitto 1990
    1. Delitto A, Snyder‐Mackler L. Two theories of muscle strength augmentation using percutaneous electrical stimulation. Physical Therapy 1990;70:158‐164. - PubMed
Dickersin 1994
    1. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifyig relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286‐1291. - PMC - PubMed
Duchateau 1988
    1. Duchateau F, Hainaut K. Training effects of submaximal electrostimulation in a human muscle. Med Sci Sports Exer. 1988;20:99‐104. - PubMed
Garnett 1981
    1. Garnett R, Stephens JA. Changes in the recruitment threshold of motor units produced by cutaneous stimulation in man. J Physiology (London) 1981;311:463‐473. - PMC - PubMed
Haynes 1994
    1. Haynes R, Wilczaynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound strategies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Info Ass 1994;1:447‐458. - PMC - PubMed
Jadad 1996
    1. Jadad A, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐2. - PubMed
Moher 1995
    1. Moher D, Jaddad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62‐73. - PubMed
Morin 1996
    1. Morin M, Brosseau L, Quirion‐DeGrardi C. A theoretical framework on low level laser therapy (classes I, II and III) application for the treatment of OA and RA. Proceedings of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association National Congress, Victoria (B.C.) 1996:1.
Philadelphia 2001
    1. Philadelphia Panel (Ottawa Methods Groups: Wells GA, Tugwell P, Brosseau L, Robinson VA, Graham ID, Shea BJ, McGowan J). Methodology for the development of the Philadelphia Panel Evidence‐Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain. Physical Therapy 2001;81:1629‐1640.
Robinson 1973
    1. Robinson HS. Total management of the arthritic patient, pp: 183‐192. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1973.
Rodnan 1983
    1. Rodnan GP, Schumacher HR, Zvaifler NJ. Primer on the rheumatic diseases, 8th Edition. Atlanta: The Arthritis Foundation, 1983.
Sinacore 1990
    1. Sinacore DR, Delitto A, King DS, Rose SJ. Type II fiber activation with electrical stimulation: A preliminary report. Physical Therapy 1990;70:416‐422. - PubMed
Snyder‐Mackler 1991
    1. Snyder‐Mackler L, Ladin Z, Schepsis AA, Young JC. Electrical stimulation of the thigh muscles after rconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surgery 1991;73‐A:1025‐1036. - PubMed
Snyder‐Mackler 1995
    1. Snyder‐Mackler L, Delitto A, Bailey S, Stralka SW. Strength of the quadriceps femoris muscle and functional recovery after reconstruction of the anterior cruciatel ligament. J Bone Joint Surgery 1995;77‐A:1166‐1173. - PubMed

MeSH terms