Efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback compared with conventional physical therapy for upper-extremity function in patients following stroke: a research overview and meta-analysis

St Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback compared with conventional physical therapy for improving upper-extremity function in patients following a stroke. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A literature search was done for the years 1976 to 1992. The selection criteria included single-blinded randomized control trials. Study quality was assessed for nine criteria. For functional (disability index or stage of recovery) and impairment outcomes, meta-analyses were performed on odds ratios for improvement versus no improvement. Mann-Whitney U-Test probability values were combined across studies. RESULTS. Six studies were selected, and outcome data were obtained for five studies. The common odds ratio was 2.2 for function and 1.1 for impairments in favor of biofeedback. The estimate of the number needed to treat to prevent a nonresponder was 11 for function and 22 for impairments. None of the meta-analyses were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION. The results do not conclusively indicate superiority of either form of therapy. Although there is a chance of Type II error, the estimated size of the effect is small. Given this estimate of little or no difference, therapists need to consider cost, ease of application, and patient preference when selecting these therapies.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. W. Duncan, R. Zorowitz, B. Bates, J. Y. Choi, J. J. Glasberg, G. D. Graham, R. C. Katz, K. Lamberty, and D. Reker Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: A Clinical Practice Guideline Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): e100 - e143. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R P. Van Peppen, G Kwakkel, S Wood-Dauphinee, H J. Hendriks, P. J Van der Wees, and J Dekker The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what's the evidence? Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2004; 18(8): 833 - 862. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G Verheyden, A Nieuwboer, J Mertin, R Preger, C Kiekens, and W De Weerdt The Trunk Impairment Scale: a new tool to measure motor impairment of the trunk after stroke Clinical Rehabilitation, March 1, 2004; 18(3): 326 - 334. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Barreca, S. L. Wolf, S. Fasoli, and R. Bohannon Treatment Interventions for the Paretic Upper Limb of Stroke Survivors: A Critical Review Neurorehabil Neural Repair, December 1, 2003; 17(4): 220 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H van der Lee, I. A. Snels, H. Beckerman, G. J Lankhorst, R. C Wagenaar, and L. M Bouter Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 2001; 15(1): 20 - 31. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. W Dalton and J. L Keating Number Needed to Treat: A Statistic Relevant for Physical Therapists Physical Therapy, December 1, 2000; 80(12): 1214 - 1219. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Zorowitz Neurorehabilitation of the Stroke Survivor Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 1999; 13(2): 83 - 92. [PDF]