ArticleSpinal cord2024
Validity and reliability study of a novel surface electromyography sensor using a well-consolidated electromyography system in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent Validity and Within-Session Reliability of a Wireless Surface Electromyography Device (MR EMG) Compared to a Criterion Measure During the Leg Extension Exercise.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wearable Sensing for Clinical Physiology Monitoring: Emerging Paradigms.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Smart assistive technologies for neurodisorders: A review on AI, IoT, and wearable systems for enhanced patient care.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Nutritional alterations, adverse consequences, and comprehensive assessment in spinal cord injury: a review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Integrating sEMG and IMU Sensors in an e-Textile Smart Vest for Forward Posture Monitoring: First Steps.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designNon-interventional, cross-sectional pilot study.
objectivesTo establish the validity and reliability of the BioStamp nPoint biosensor (Medidata Solutions, New York, NY, USA [formerly MC10, Inc.]) for measuring electromyography in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) by comparing the surface electromyography (sEMG) metrics with the Trigno wireless electromyography system (Delsys, Natick, MA, USA).
settingParticipants were recruited from the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab registry.
methodsIndividuals aged 18-70 years with cervical SCI were evaluated with the two biosensors to capture activity on upper-extremity muscles during two study sessions conducted over 2 days (day 1-consent alone; day 2-two data collections in same session). Time and frequency metrics were captured, and signal-to-noise ratio was determined for each muscle group. Test-retest reliability was determined using Pearson's correlation. Validation of the BioStamp nPoint system was based on Bland-Altmann analysis.
resultsAmong the 11 participants, 30.8% had subacute cervical injury at C5-C6; 53.8% were injured within 1 year of the study. Results from the test-retest reliability assessment revealed that most Pearson's correlations between the two sensory measurements were strong (≥0.50). The Bland-Altman analysis found values of the signal-to-noise ratio, frequency, and peak amplitude were within the level of agreement. Signal-to-noise ratios ranged from 7.06 to 22.1.
conclusionsIn most instances, the performance of the BioStamp nPoint sensors was moderately to strongly correlated with that of the Trigno sensors in all muscle groups tested. The BioStamp nPoint system is a valid and reliable approach to assess sEMG measures in individuals with cervical SCI. SPONSORSHIP: The present study was supported by AbbVie Inc.
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.