Cochrane · systematic review · CD011764
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Hajibandeh, S, Hajibandeh, S, Antoniou, GA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
48
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 26 · 54.2%Very low 0 · 0%Low 21 · 43.8%Moderate 1 · 2.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
NMES compared to alternative prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | OR 1.01 [0.6, 1.7] | 6 studies · 415 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | OR 1.61 [0.4, 6.43] | 1 study · 89 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | OR 0.4 [0.02, 10.07] | 1 study · 89 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
PE NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | OR 1.31 [0.38, 4.48] | 2 studies · 126 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total VTE NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | OR 0.92 [0.34, 2.52] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs alternative prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 415 participants | Ungraded |
NMES compared to no prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.4 [0.23, 0.7] | 4 studies · 576 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.32 [0.06, 1.62] | 1 study · 200 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.06 [0, 1.36] | 1 study · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
PE NMES vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.36 [0.12, 1.07] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total VTE NMES vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.23 [0.09, 0.59] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 576 participants | Ungraded |
NMES compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs low‐dose heparin | OR 2.78 [1.19, 6.48] | 2 studies · 194 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs low‐dose heparin | OR 1.61 [0.4, 6.43] | 1 study · 89 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs low‐dose heparin | OR 0.4 [0.02, 10.07] | 1 study · 89 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
PE NMES vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Ungraded |
Total VTE NMES vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Ungraded |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Ungraded |
NMES compared to Dextran 40 for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs Dextran 40 | OR 0.63 [0.18, 2.19] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs Dextran 40 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Ungraded |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs Dextran 40 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Ungraded |
PE NMES vs Dextran 40 | OR 1.5 [0.39, 5.84] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total VTE NMES vs Dextran 40 | OR 0.92 [0.34, 2.52] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs Dextran 40 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Ungraded |
Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to no prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | OR 0.08 [0.01, 0.76] | 1 study · 32 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Symptomatic DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
PE Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Total VTE Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Bleeding (major and minor) Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs no prophylaxis | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin compared to low‐dose heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | OR 0.07 [0.01, 0.68] | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Symptomatic DVT Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
PE Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Total VTE Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Bleeding (major and minor) Combined NMES and low‐dose heparin vs low‐dose heparin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
NMES compared to GCS for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs GCS | OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.27] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs GCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs GCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
PE NMES vs GCS | OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.27] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total VTE NMES vs GCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs GCS | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
NMES compared to IPCD for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
Population: participants at risk of venous thromboembolism
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total DVT NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Asymptomatic DVT NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Symptomatic DVT NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
PE NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total VTE NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Bleeding (major and minor) NMES vs IPCD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |