↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patellofemoral pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

22 X users
3 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
1 YouTube creator


30 Dimensions

Readers on

366 Mendeley
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patellofemoral pain syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011289.pub2
Pubmed ID

Ana Luiza C Martimbianco, Maria Regina Torloni, Brenda NG Andriolo, Gustavo JM Porfírio, Rachel Riera


Patellofemoral pain syndrome, now generally referred to as patellofemoral pain (PFP), is one of the most common orthopaedic disorders, characterised by pain in the anterior or retropatellar knee region. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been proposed generally as a complementary treatment, associated with other interventions such as exercise, or as a single treatment to increase muscle force, reduce knee pain, and improve function. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for people with patellofemoral pain. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, LILACS, trial registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists. We carried out the search in May 2017. We included randomised controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of NMES for people with PFP. Two review authors independently performed the process of study selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. The primary outcomes were knee pain, knee function, and adverse events. The timing of outcome measurements was up to three months (short term), three to 12 months (medium term), and 12 months and above from trial entry (long term). We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences or standardised mean differences for continuous data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using the fixed-effect model. We included eight randomised clinical trials, reporting results for 345 participants with PFP. The mean ages of trial populations ranged from 25 to 43 years, and the majority (53% to 100%) of participants were female. There was a wide duration of symptoms, with the minimum duration of symptoms for trial inclusion ranging from one to six months. In addition to the study inclusion criteria, studies varied widely in the characteristics of the NMES and its application, and associated co-interventions. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, particularly blinding and incomplete outcome data. The results of a laboratory-based trial reporting knee pain immediately after a single 15-minute session of NMES are not reported here as these are of questionable clinical relevance. The seven remaining trials provided evidence for three comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE, for all primary outcomes for all comparisons as very low, thus we are very unsure of the findings.Four studies compared NMES plus exercise versus exercise alone. Patellar taping was applied as well as exercise to all participants of one study, and patellar taping and ice were also applied in another study. Each trial tested a different multiple-session NMES programme. Pooled data from three studies (118 participants) provided very low-quality evidence that NMES is associated with reduced pain at the end of treatment (ranging from 3 to 12 weeks): mean difference -1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.23 to -1.02; visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10; higher scores = worse pain. However, this result may not be clinically relevant since the minimal clinically important difference for VAS during activities (1.5 to 2.0, out of 10 points) lies within the 95% CI. We found very low-quality evidence from pooled data from two trials of little effect of NMES on knee function, as measured by two knee function rating systems. We found inconclusive and very low-quality evidence from one trial (29 participants) of little effect of NMES on pain and function at one-year follow-up. None of the four trials reported on adverse effects of treatment.One study (94 participants) compared NMES, applied four hours per day on a daily basis for four weeks, with two types of exercises (isometric and isokinetic). The study did not report on knee pain or adverse events. The study provided very low-quality evidence of no important difference between the two groups in knee function at the end of the four-week treatment. Of note is the potentially onerous NMES schedule in this study, which does not correspond to that typically used in clinical practice.Two studies compared different types of NMES. Simultaneously delivered high-low frequencies NMES was compared with sequentially delivered high-low frequencies NMES in one trial (14 participants) and with fixed frequency NMES in the second trial (64 participants). The studies provided very low-quality evidence of no important differences at the end of the six-week treatment programme between the simultaneous frequencies NMES and the two other NMES programmes in overall knee pain, knee function, or in quadriceps fatigue (an adverse event). This review found insufficient and inconclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform on the role of NMES for treating people with PFP in current clinical practice. The very low-quality evidence available means that we are uncertain whether or not a multiple-session programme of NMES combined with exercise over several weeks versus exercise alone results in clinically important differences in knee pain and function at the end of the treatment period or at one year. There were no data on adverse effects such as muscle fatigue and discomfort. High-quality randomised clinical trials are needed to inform on the use of NMES for people with PFP. However, professional and stakeholder consensus is required on prioritisation of the research questions for interventions for treating people with PFP, including on the NMES treatment protocol for trials testing NMES.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 366 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 14%
Student > Bachelor 47 13%
Researcher 27 7%
Student > Postgraduate 20 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 64 17%
Unknown 139 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 20%
Sports and Recreations 13 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 31 8%
Unknown 155 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 446,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.