ArticleFunctional neurology
Knowledge of electromyography (EMG) in patients undergoing EMG examinations.
Article in Functional neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How much does clinical prediagnosis correlate with electrophysiological findings?: a retrospective study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2024Article
- Winter School on sEMG Signal Processing: An Initiative to Reduce Educational Gaps and to Promote the Engagement of Physiotherapists and Movement Scientists With Science.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge of electromyography (EMG) in patients undergoing the procedure. In one year, 1,586 consecutive patients (mean age 56 years; 58.8% women) were admitted to two EMG labs to undergo EMG for the first time. The patients found to be "informed" about the how an EMG examination is performed and about the purpose of EMG numbered 448 (28.2%), while those found to be "informed" only about the manner of its execution or only about its purpose numbered 161 (10.2%) and 151 (9.5%), respectively. The remaining 826 (52.1%) patients had either no information, or the information they had was very poor or incorrect (this was particularly true if they had been consulting websites). Being "informed" was associated with level of education (high), type of referring physician (specialist) and with an appropriate referral diagnosis specified in the EMG request. The quality of patient information on EMG was found to be very poor and could be improved. Physicians referring patients for EMG examinations, especially general practitioners, should assume primary responsibility for patient education and counseling in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25473740PMC4264787What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.