Contraction fatigue, strength adaptations, and discomfort during conventional versus wide-pulse, high-frequency, neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a systematic review

Registro completo de metadados
MetadadosDescriçãoIdioma
Autor(es): dc.creatorBastos, Júlia Aguillar Ivo-
Autor(es): dc.creatorMartins, Wagner Rodrigues-
Autor(es): dc.creatorCipriano Júnior, Gerson-
Autor(es): dc.creatorCollins, David Frederic-
Autor(es): dc.creatorDurigan, João Luiz Quagliotti-
Data de aceite: dc.date.accessioned2021-10-14T18:16:56Z-
Data de disponibilização: dc.date.available2021-10-14T18:16:56Z-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2021-08-04-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2021-08-04-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2021-07-14-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/41562-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2021-0269-
Fonte: dc.identifier.urihttp://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/capes/627839-
Descrição: dc.descriptionNeuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can be delivered in a conventional form (CONVNMES) and using relatively wide-pulses and high-frequencies (WPHFNMES). WPHFNMES is proposed to reduce contraction fatigability and generate larger contractions with less discomfort than CONVNMES, however, there are no systematic reviews to guide the selection of NMES types. This systematic review compared the effects of CONVNMES versus WPHFNMES on contraction fatigability, strength adaptations, and perceived discomfort in clinical and non-clinical populations. Eight studies were included. When averaged across all non-clinical participants in individual short- and long-term studies, there was either no difference between CONVNMES and WPHFNMES for all outcomes or WPHFNMES produced more fatigability. In a subset of non-clinical participants (“responders”), however, WPHFNMES reduced contraction fatigability during a single session. Long-term studies found no differences between protocols for strength adaptations in non-clinical participants and those with multiple sclerosis. We concluded that WPHFNMES reduces contraction fatigability only in the short-term and in non-clinical responder participants and may exacerbate fatigability in non-responders.This review was registered in the prospective international registry of systematic reviews/PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42020153907, accessed at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).Novelty bullets: • WPHF NMES may reduce fatigue in some participants and exacerbate fatigue in others.• There were no differences in long-term between WPHF and CONV NMES on strength adaptations. • Future high-quality research is needed to optimize outcomes of NMES-based programs.-
Publicador: dc.publisherCanadian Science Publishing-
Relação: dc.relationhttps://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/apnm-2021-0269-
Direitos: dc.rightsAcesso Restrito-
Palavras-chave: dc.subjectEstimulação elétrica neuromuscular-
Palavras-chave: dc.subjectFadiga muscular-
Palavras-chave: dc.subjectAptidão física-
Palavras-chave: dc.subjectDesconforto músculo-esquelético-
Título: dc.titleContraction fatigue, strength adaptations, and discomfort during conventional versus wide-pulse, high-frequency, neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a systematic review-
Tipo de arquivo: dc.typelivro digital-
Aparece nas coleções:UNB

Não existem arquivos associados a este item.