A major contributing factor may be the scarcity of human clinical studies involving NMES. Limitations of NMES suggested by neurophysiological studies and the controversy regarding its effectiveness from animal studies have possibly tempered impetus for further clinical evaluation in humans (Al-Majed et al., 2000; Tam & Gordon, 2003).
the United States with a high-income classification), there is likely increased incentive to explore the therapeutic potential of NMES, a relatively inexpensive intervention, along with other therapeutic interventions.
NMES application can be categorized into three parameters: equipment settings, type of current, and placement of electrodes (Michlovitz, 2005).
Aside from the application parameters of NMES, two other important considerations are timing of treatment and appropriateness of this modality for children with NBPP.
Third, the lesions in this series may have been more serious and therefore less likely to demonstrate improvement in response to NMES.
The level of discomfort associated with the application of NMES was assessed by a visual analogical scale (VAS) from 0 (no discomfort) to 10 (extreme/unsustainable discomfort), approximately 15 min after the beginning of each NMES session.
The comparisons of the variables (current intensity, evoked force, and discomfort) between the two conditions (multipath versus conventional NMES) were made by paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed ranks test for paired data depending on the normality of the data.
All patients were able to complete the two NMES sessions with no adverse events.
Evoked Force by NMES. NMES-evoked force was 6.2 [+ or -] 9.0% MVC for multipath NMES versus 3.2 [+ or -] 4.0% MVC for conventional NMES (p = 0.12; Figure 2(b)).
The level of discomfort was 5 [+ or -] 3 and 6 [+ or -] 3 for multipath and conventional NMES, respectively (p = 0.03; Figure 2(c)).