In the case of significant statistical heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), a random effects model was applied to check the robustness of the results. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis was performed if there was significant statistical heterogeneity. The analyses were performed using The MIX-Meta-Analysis Made Easy program27 Version 1.7.9 and 10 Where data were not available to be included in the pooled analysis, the between-group result was reported. For all outcome measures, the critical value for rejecting H0 was set at a level of 0.05 (2-tailed). The electronic search strategy identified 6796 papers (excluding duplicates). After screening titles, abstracts and reference lists, 64 potentially

relevant full papers were retrieved. Forty-eight papers failed to meet the inclusion

criteria; KU-57788 mw selleck compound therefore 16 papers were included in this systematic review. One of the papers reported a trial with three arms (cyclical electrical stimulation group, no-intervention group and alternative strengthening intervention group). Therefore, 17 relevant comparisons were reported among the 16 included trials. Figure 1 presents the flow of papers through the review. See Appendix 2 on the eAddenda for a summary of the excluded papers. The 16 trials involved 638 participants and investigated the efficacy of electrical stimulation for increasing muscle strength after stroke. Details of the individual trials are presented in Table 1. Thirteen trials compared electrical stimulation with nothing/placebo, providing data to answer the first also study question.8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21 and 22 Three trials compared electrical stimulation with other strengthening interventions, providing data to answer the second study question.16, 23 and 24 One trial25 compared different doses/modes of electrical stimulation (ie, the third study question). Additional information was obtained from the authors for four papers.8, 11, 18 and 21 The mean PEDro score of the papers was 5 (range 2 to 7) (Table 2). The majority of trials: randomly allocated participants (88%); had similar groups at baseline (75%); had blinded assessors (56%); reported loss to follow-up of 15% or less (69%); reported between-group differences (81%); and reported point estimate and variability (94%). However, the majority of trials did not report that they concealed allocation (81%) or carried out an intention-to-treat analysis (88%). All trials, except one, did not blind therapists and participants, which is difficult for this intervention involving near maximum muscle contraction. The mean age of participants ranged from 52 to 75 years old. In the trials of sub-acute participants, the mean time after stroke ranged from 1 week to 6 months (nine trials), whereas in trials of chronic participants it ranged from 2 to 5 years (seven trials) including additional information from the authors for two trials.