Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation Using Surface Electromyography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Fugl-Meyer Assessment
biofeedback
electromyography
paresis
stroke
upper limb function
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
16
03
2022
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
8
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Upper limb impairment is common after stroke, and many will not regain full upper limb function. Different technologies based on surface electromyography (sEMG) have been used in stroke rehabilitation, but there is no collated evidence on the different sEMG-driven interventions and their effect on upper limb function in people with stroke. Synthesize existing evidence and perform a meta-analysis on the effect of different types of sEMG-driven interventions on upper limb function in people with stroke. PubMed, SCOPUS, and PEDro databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized clinical trials that utilize sEMG-driven interventions to improve upper limb function assessed by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) in stroke. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included studies. In addition, a meta-analysis utilizing a random effect model was performed for studies comparing sEMG interventions to non-sEMG interventions and for studies comparing different sEMG interventions protocols. Twenty-four studies comprising 808 participants were included in this review. The methodological quality was good to fair. The meta-analysis showed no differences in the total effect, assessed by total FMA-UE score, comparing sEMG interventions to non-sEMG interventions (14 studies, 509 participants, SMD 0.14, P 0.37, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.46, I This review and meta-analysis could not discern the effect of sEMG in comparison to a non-sEMG intervention or the most effective type of sEMG intervention for improving upper limb function in stroke populations. Current evidence suggests that sEMG is a promising tool to further improve functional recovery, but randomized clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to verify whether the effect on upper extremity function of a specific sEMG intervention is superior compared to other non-sEMG or other type of sEMG interventions.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Upper limb impairment is common after stroke, and many will not regain full upper limb function. Different technologies based on surface electromyography (sEMG) have been used in stroke rehabilitation, but there is no collated evidence on the different sEMG-driven interventions and their effect on upper limb function in people with stroke.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
Synthesize existing evidence and perform a meta-analysis on the effect of different types of sEMG-driven interventions on upper limb function in people with stroke.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
PubMed, SCOPUS, and PEDro databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized clinical trials that utilize sEMG-driven interventions to improve upper limb function assessed by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) in stroke. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included studies. In addition, a meta-analysis utilizing a random effect model was performed for studies comparing sEMG interventions to non-sEMG interventions and for studies comparing different sEMG interventions protocols.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-four studies comprising 808 participants were included in this review. The methodological quality was good to fair. The meta-analysis showed no differences in the total effect, assessed by total FMA-UE score, comparing sEMG interventions to non-sEMG interventions (14 studies, 509 participants, SMD 0.14, P 0.37, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.46, I
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
This review and meta-analysis could not discern the effect of sEMG in comparison to a non-sEMG intervention or the most effective type of sEMG intervention for improving upper limb function in stroke populations. Current evidence suggests that sEMG is a promising tool to further improve functional recovery, but randomized clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to verify whether the effect on upper extremity function of a specific sEMG intervention is superior compared to other non-sEMG or other type of sEMG interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35669202
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.897870
pmc: PMC9163806
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
897870Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Munoz-Novoa, Kristoffersen, Sunnerhagen, Naber, Alt Murphy and Ortiz-Catalan.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Med Devices (Auckl). 2017 Aug 24;10:207-213
pubmed: 28883745
Front Neurol. 2020 Oct 15;11:576729
pubmed: 33178118
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017;35(3):319-332
pubmed: 28506003
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Aug;33(8):1286-1297
pubmed: 30977379
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222770
pubmed: 31536575
Neurol Int. 2009 Nov 16;1(1):e10
pubmed: 21577347
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Nov;30(10):978-987
pubmed: 27225977
Clin Rehabil. 2008 Apr;22(4):291-305
pubmed: 18390973
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40
pubmed: 12234086
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Oct;23(8):837-46
pubmed: 19531605
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Sep;29(8):767-76
pubmed: 25549656
Clin Rehabil. 2008 Aug;22(8):690-7
pubmed: 18678569
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Oct;30(9):804-16
pubmed: 26747128
Int J Rehabil Res. 2013 Dec;36(4):315-22
pubmed: 23579106
Occup Ther Int. 2016 Jun;23(2):165-74
pubmed: 26876527
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 12;(11):CD010820
pubmed: 25387001
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jun 3;16(1):64
pubmed: 31159822
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Rehabil Med. 2017 Aug 31;49(8):629-636
pubmed: 28792587
Occup Ther Int. 2009;16(3-4):175-89
pubmed: 19504501
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 02;11:934
pubmed: 32982942
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;87(1):1-9
pubmed: 16401430
Clin Rehabil. 2007 Jul;21(7):587-94
pubmed: 17702700
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Sep 13;10:442
pubmed: 27679565
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jun;27(6):494-503
pubmed: 23147552
NeuroRehabilitation. 2020;46(3):417-422
pubmed: 32310196
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 11;11:583296
pubmed: 33362693
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD004585
pubmed: 17443550
Int J Rehabil Res. 2016 Dec;39(4):302-307
pubmed: 27437723
Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 28;6(1):40
pubmed: 28245858
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 07;(11):CD006876
pubmed: 26559225
BMC Neurol. 2012 Dec 29;12:162
pubmed: 23273107
NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(2):235-44
pubmed: 24419019
Behav Neurol. 2019 Jan 16;2019:2606039
pubmed: 30800187
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Apr;31(4):376-386
pubmed: 28107802
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;37(4):194-203
pubmed: 24232364
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Nov;16(11):877-897
pubmed: 28931491
Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Oct;42(20):2876-2881
pubmed: 30946602
Phys Ther. 2003 Aug;83(8):713-21
pubmed: 12882612
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):830-7
pubmed: 21666139
Stroke. 2010 Apr;41(4):745-50
pubmed: 20167916
BMC Neurol. 2015 Jun 18;15:92
pubmed: 26084397
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Apr;33(4):284-295
pubmed: 30888251
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jun 15;18(1):100
pubmed: 34130713
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Dec;74(12):1301-4
pubmed: 8259896
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(4):479-96
pubmed: 22773253
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Feb;33(2):96-111
pubmed: 30704366
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Nov;92(11):1746-53
pubmed: 21959035
J Rehabil Med. 2019 Oct 4;51(9):652-659
pubmed: 31448807
Neuroscientist. 2018 Aug;24(4):400-416
pubmed: 29283026
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2013;31(6):681-91
pubmed: 23963340
J Neurol Sci. 2004 Aug 30;223(2):121-7
pubmed: 15337612
Front Neurol. 2017 Sep 04;8:447
pubmed: 28928706
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Jul 10;11:111
pubmed: 25012864
J Rehabil Med. 2020 Feb 7;52(2):
pubmed: 31960066
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Jun 18;10:60
pubmed: 23777436