Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Currently submitted to: JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies

Date Submitted: Dec 25, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 13, 2026 - Mar 10, 2026
(currently open for review)

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Functional Electrical Stimulation for Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Evidence

  • Ravi Natwadia

ABSTRACT

Background:

: Stroke remains a leading cause of motor disability globally. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has emerged as a promising neurorehabilitation modality, but its comparative efficacy, optimal application parameters, and long-term sustainability remain incompletely characterized.

Objective:

To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published between 2021 and 2025 regarding the effectiveness of FES interventions for upper and lower limb motor recovery in post-stroke populations.

Methods:

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were selected based on PRISMA 2020 criteria. Quality appraisal was performed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Quantitative synthesis was conducted using random-effects meta-analyses.

Results:

Twenty-seven studies (n=2,309 stroke participants) were included, encompassing diverse FES modalities: manually controlled, electromyography-triggered, brain-computer interface-controlled, and hybrid systems. Meta-analytic findings demonstrated that FES combined with occupational therapy produced significantly greater improvements in upper limb motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment: mean difference [MD] = 5.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-7.71) compared to standard care alone. Brain-computer interface-controlled FES achieved superior outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.73, 95% CI 0.26-1.20) particularly when paired with action observation tasks. For lower limb recovery, FES reduced foot drop severity and enhanced gait parameters, with 52% of participants achieving independent walking. Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated long-term value (£15,406 per quality-adjusted life year). Adverse events were minimal, primarily limited to temporary skin irritation.

Conclusions:

FES represents a viable, evidence-supported adjunctive intervention for post-stroke motor recovery across subacute and chronic phases. Emerging technologies integrating brain-computer interfaces and artificial intelligence offer enhanced personalization and efficacy. Future research should prioritize real-world implementation trials, long-term follow-up protocols, and mechanisms underlying neuroplastic adaptations.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Natwadia R

Functional Electrical Stimulation for Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Evidence

JMIR Preprints. 25/12/2025:90342

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.90342

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/90342

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.