The results of the current systematic I-BET151 datasheet review provide stronger evidence of the efficacy of electrical stimulation for increasing strength and improving activity; this is because the conclusions are based on a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials and two controlled trials of reasonable quality. In addition, the trials included in the meta-analysis were similar with regard to the stimulation parameters (frequency and duration of the stimulus) and the amount of intervention

delivered. Although the length of the individual sessions varied (mean 45 min per muscle, SD 38), the trials were very similar in their frequency (mean 4.6/wk, SD 0.7) and duration (mean 5.8 wk, SD 3.0) of intervention. The evidence appears strong enough to recommend that daily sessions of electrical stimulation with high repetitions of maximum muscle contractions be used to increase strength after stroke. The second question examined whether electrical stimulation is more effective than other strengthening interventions for increasing strength after stroke. There are insufficient data to determine whether electrical stimulation is better than another strengthening intervention. Only three trials investigating this question were included and a meta-analysis could not be performed. Furthermore, the mean PEDro score of 4.0 from the three trials related to this question

represents low quality, with considerable performance,

attrition and detection bias present. The third question examined Pfizer Licensed Compound Library the most effective dose or mode of electrical stimulation for increasing strength after stroke. There are insufficient data to provide evidence regarding the effect of different doses/modes of electrical stimulation. Only one trial 25 directly compared two different modes and found no difference between electrical stimulation and EMG-triggered electrical stimulation, with an effect size near zero. This review has both strengths and limitations. The mean PEDro score of 5.0 for the 16 trials included in this review represents moderate quality. A source Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase of bias in the included trials was lack of blinding of therapists and participants, since it is very difficult to blind therapists or participants during the delivery of complex interventions. Other sources of bias were lack of reporting concealed allocation or whether an intention-to-treat analysis was undertaken. On the other hand, the main strength of this review is that only trials where electrical stimulation was applied in order to increase strength and with a clear measure of force generation were included; this makes the results specific to the research questions. Additionally, publication bias inherent to systematic reviews was avoided by including studies published in languages other than English.