Table 4.
Percent Improvement From Baseline Between Patients Treated With FES and Controls.
| Authors (Year) | Outcome | Baseline | Discharge | Authors’ Conclusions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FES | Control | FES | Control | |||
| Popovic et al (2011) | FIM Motor subscore | 7.2 | 6.8 | 22.2 | 10.9 | FES more effective than controla |
| FIM Self-Care subscore | 8.1 | 7.8 | 28.2 | 17.8 | FES more effective than control | |
| SCIM Self-Care subscore | 1.9 | 3.3 | 12.1 | 6.4 | FES more effective than control | |
| TRI HFT | ||||||
| 10 objects | 37.1 | 27.2 | 53.8 | 38.5 | No statistical difference | |
| 9 rectangular blocks | 49.7 | 29.3 | 49.7 | 38.4 | No statistical difference | |
| Cylinder (able to hold) | 1.0 | 1.90 | 1.7 | 1.33 | FES more effective than control | |
| Cylinder (torque, N·m) | 0.26 | 0.26 | 1.13 | 2.59 | No statistical difference | |
| Credit card (able to hold) | 1.0 | 1.33 | 1.7 | 1.41 | FES more effective than control | |
| Credit card (force, nm) | 4.42 | 2.67 | 12.5 | 8.76 | No statistical difference | |
| Wooden bar (able to hold) | 0.8 | 0.63 | 1.5 | 0.96 | No statistical difference | |
| Wooden bar (thumb direction, length values, cm) | 1.67 | 2.88 | 10.94 | 10.5 | No statistical difference | |
| Wooden bar (little finger direction, length values, cm) | 5.56 | 3.17 | 12.78 | 11.85 | No statistical difference | |
Abbreviations: FES: functional electrical stimulation; FIM, functional independence measure; SCIM, Spinal Cord Independence Measure; TRI-HFT, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute–Hand Function Test.
a Calculated based on data provided in the article, but not analyzed by Popovic et al (2011).