Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,501 questions · 1,558 findings · 115 reviews · Vascular

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 346 · 22.2%GRADE not reported 90 · 5.8%Very low 281 · 18%Low 477 · 30.6%Moderate 313 · 20.1%High 51 · 3.3%

Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin

Total VTE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin

Bleeding (major and minor) · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs GCS

Deep vein thrombosis · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in total DVT compared with GCS (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.27]
1 study · 36 participants
Low

NMES vs GCS

Asymptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs GCS

Symptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs alternative prophylaxis

PE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in PE compared with alternative prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.31 [0.38, 4.48]
2 studies · 126 participants
Low

NMES vs GCS

PE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in PE compared with GCS (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.27]
1 study · 36 participants
Low

NMES vs GCS

Total VTE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs GCS

Bleeding (major and minor) · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs IPCD

Deep vein thrombosis · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
Low

NMES vs IPCD

Asymptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs IPCD

Symptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs IPCD

PE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
Low

NMES vs IPCD

Total VTE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs IPCD

Bleeding (major and minor) · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs alternative prophylaxis

Total VTE · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in total VTE compared with alternative prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.92 [0.34, 2.52]
1 study · 72 participants
Low

NMES vs alternative prophylaxis

Bleeding (major and minor) · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
6 studies · 415 participants
GRADE not reported

NMES vs no prophylaxis

Deep vein thrombosis · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES probably leads to lower total DVT compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.4 [0.23, 0.7]
4 studies · 576 participants
Moderate

NMES vs no prophylaxis

Asymptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in asymptomatic DVT compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.32 [0.06, 1.62]
1 study · 200 participants
Low

NMES vs no prophylaxis

Symptomatic DVT · participants at risk of venous thromboembolism

NMES showed no clear difference in symptomatic DVT compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.06 [0, 1.36]
1 study · 160 participants
Low