Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34300002›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Ultrasound Imaging as a Visual Biofeedback Tool in Rehabilitation: An Updated Systematic Review.

Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, Umut Varol, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago, Gracia María Gallego-Sendarrubias, José Luis Arias-Buría

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Juan Antonio Valera-CaleroDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, 28692 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3379-8392
César Fernández-de-Las-PeñasDepartment of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3772-9690
Umut VarolIE School of Human Sciences and Technology, IE University, 28006 Madrid, Spain.
Ricardo Ortega-SantiagoDepartment of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain.
Gracia María Gallego-SendarrubiasDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, 28692 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain.
José Luis Arias-BuríaDepartment of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8548-4427
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESCamilo José Cela University · ESIE University · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) is used by physical therapists as a feedback tool for measuring changes in muscle morphology during therapeutic interventions such as motor control exercises (MCE). However, a structured overview of its efficacy is lacking. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of RUSI for improving MCE programs compared with no feedback and other feedback methods. MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched for studies evaluating efficacy data of RUSI to improve muscular morphology, quality, and/or function of skeletal muscles and MCE success. Eleven studies analyzing RUSI feedback during MCE were included. Most studies showed acceptable methodological quality. Seven studies assessed abdominal wall muscles, one assessed pelvic floor muscles, one serratus anterior muscle, and two lumbar multifidi. Eight studies involved healthy subjects and three studies clinical populations. Eight studies assessed muscle thickness and pressure differences during MCE, two assessed the number of trials needed to successfully perform MCE, three assessed the retain success, seven assessed the muscle activity with electromyography and one assessed clinical severity outcomes. Visual RUSI feedback seems to be more effective than tactile and/or verbal biofeedback for improving MCE performance and retention success, but no differences with pressure unit biofeedback were found.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAbdominal MusclesBiofeedback, PsychologyHumansMuscle, SkeletalUltrasonographyfeedbackmotor controlrehabilitationsystematic reviewultrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID34300002
PMCPMC8305734
OpenAlexW3181258798

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.