Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33123079›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2020

A Survey on the Use and Barriers of Surface Electromyography in Neurorehabilitation.

Andrea Manca, Andrea Cereatti, Lynn Bar-On, Alberto Botter, Ugo Della Croce, Marco Knaflitz, Nicola A Maffiuletti, Davide Mazzoli, Andrea Merlo, Silvestro Roatta and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Andrea MancaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Andrea CereattiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Lynn Bar-OnDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Alberto BotterDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Ugo Della CroceDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Marco KnaflitzDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Nicola A MaffiulettiHuman Performance Laboratory, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.
Davide MazzoliGait and Motion Analysis Laboratory, Sol et Salus Hospital, Rimini, Italy.
Andrea MerloGait and Motion Analysis Laboratory, Sol et Salus Hospital, Rimini, Italy.
Silvestro RoattaDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Andrea TurollaLaboratory of Rehabilitation Technologies, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Franca DeriuDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical researchexpert opinionmuscle activationneurorehabilitationsEMGsurface electromyographysurvey

Identifiers

PMID33123079
PMCPMC7566898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.