ArticleFrontiers in neurology2020
A Survey on the Use and Barriers of Surface Electromyography in Neurorehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of surface EMG in predicting responsiveness of muscles to FES therapy after cervical SCI.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Multimodal Neuroimaging and Electrophysiological Markers in Multiple Sclerosis: An Integrative Review of fMRI, EEG, and EMG Approaches : fMRI, EEG, EMG in Multiple Sclerosis.Galen medical journal · 2025Review
- Transferring Sensor-Based Assessments to Clinical Practice: The Case of Muscle Synergies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrating surface electromyography into physical therapy training with the support of STEM education.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Exploring knowledge, perception, and use of surface electromyography in physiotherapy post graduate trainees in Italy: a single center preliminary survey.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Metrology in sEMG and movement analysis: the need for training new figures in clinical rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Review
- A Narrative Review on Multi-Domain Instrumental Approaches to Evaluate Neuromotor Function in Rehabilitation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Translation of surface electromyography to clinical and motor rehabilitation applications: The need for new clinical figures.Translational neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- A unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb functions in neurological disorders.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Fundamental Concepts of Bipolar and High-Density Surface EMG Understanding and Teaching for Clinical, Occupational, and Sport Applications: Origin, Detection, and Main Errors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Muscle Function by Means of a Muscle-Specific and a Global Index.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biopotential Signal Monitoring Systems in Rehabilitation: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Monitoring Involuntary Muscle Activity in Acute Patients with Upper Motor Neuron Lesion by Wearable Sensors: A Feasibility Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clinical Relevance of State-of-the-Art Analysis of Surface Electromyography in Cerebral Palsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
- Use of Surface EMG in Clinical Rehabilitation of Individuals With SCI: Barriers and Future Considerations.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Added Value of Dynamic EMG in the Assessment of the Equinus and the Equinovarus Foot Deviation in Stroke Patients and Barriers Limiting Its Usage.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historical, educational, and technical barriers have been reported to limit the use of surface electromyography (sEMG) in clinical neurorehabilitation settings. In an attempt to identify, review, rank, and interpret potential factors that may play a role in this scenario, we gathered information on (1) current use of sEMG and its clinical potential; (2) professional figures primarily dealing with sEMG; (3) educational aspects, and (4) possible barriers and reasons for its apparently limited use in neurorehabilitation. To this aim, an online 30-question survey was sent to 52 experts on sEMG from diverse standpoints, backgrounds, and countries. Participants were asked to respond to each question on a 5-point Likert scale or by ranking items. A cut-off of 75% agreement was chosen as the consensus threshold. Thirty-five invitees (67%) completed the electronic survey. Consensus was reached for 77% of the proposed questions encompassing current trends in sEMG use in neurorehabilitation, educational, technical, and methodological features as well as its translational utility for clinicians and patients. Data evidenced the clinical utility of sEMG for patient assessment, to define the intervention plan, and to complement/optimize other methods used to quantify muscle and physical function. The aggregate opinion of the interviewed experts confirmed that sEMG is more frequently employed in technical/methodological than clinical research. Moreover, the slow dissemination of research findings and the lack of education on sEMG seem to prevent prompt transfer into practice. The findings of the present survey may contribute to the ongoing debate on the appropriateness and value of sEMG for neurorehabilitation professionals and its potential translation into clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.