Title Page
Contents
ABBREVIATIONS 7
국문 초록 9
ABSTRACT 11
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 15
Ⅱ. MATERIALS AND METHODS 19
1. Identification and selection of studies 19
2. Quality assessment of the studies 20
3. Participants 20
4. Interventions 20
5. Comparison interventions 21
6. Outcome measures 21
7. Data extraction 21
8. Data analysis 22
Ⅲ. RESULTS 23
1. Flow of literature search 23
2. Study characteristics 25
3. Quality assessment of the studies 33
4. Participants 35
5. Interventions 35
6. Outcome measures 35
A. Effectiveness of FESE intervention against the control interventions 36
B. Subgroup analysis 43
C. Sensitivity analysis 53
7. Publication bias 55
Ⅳ. DISCUSSION 58
Ⅴ. LIMITATIONS 61
Ⅵ. CONCLUSION 63
REFERENCES 64
CURRICULUM VITAE 69
APPENDIX 73
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies (n=18). 26
Table 2. Methodological quality study assessment of the RCT studies according to RoB 2 (n=3). 33
Table 3. Methodological quality study assessment of the NRCT studies according to the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies (n=15). 34
Table 4. Summary of subgroup analysis of hybrid functional electrical stimulation exercise training (FESE). 50
Table 5. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses on RER. 53
Table 6. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses on HR. 54
Table 7. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses on PO. 54
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of included studies. 24
Figure 2. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on relative peak VO₂. 37
Figure 3. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on absolute peak VO₂. 38
Figure 4. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on peak Ve. 39
Figure 5. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on peak RER. 40
Figure 6. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on peak HR. 41
Figure 7. Forest plot comparing the effectiveness of FESE (FESC and FESR) over control interventions on peak PO. 42
Figure 8. Subgroup analysis of relative peak VO₂ between FESC and FESR. 44
Figure 9. Subgroup analysis of absolute peak VO₂ between FESC and FESR. 45
Figure 10. Subgroup analysis of peak Ve between FESC and FESR. 46
Figure 11. Subgroup analysis of peak RER between FESC and FESR. 47
Figure 12. Subgroup analysis of peak HR between FESC and FESR. 48
Figure 13. Subgroup analysis of peak PO according to FESC and FESR. 49
Figure 14. Funnel plots to obtain evidence of publication bias for absolute peak VO₂ (panel A), relative peak VO₂ (panel B), peak HR (panel C), peak Ve (panel D), peak RER (panel E), and peak PO (panel F) outcomes against their corresponding sampling variances. 57
Figure 15. Schematic representation of this study 63