An sEMG-Controlled Forearm Bracelet for Assessing and Training Manual Dexterity in Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine 2022-05, Vol.11 (11), p.3119
• Main Authors: Marcos-Antón, Selena, Gor-García-Fogeda, María Dolores, Cano-de-la-Cuerda, Roberto
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Activities of daily living; Amputation; Bias; Cross-sectional studies; Electromyography; Intervention; Motor ability; Patients; Rehabilitation; Review; Systematic review; Validity; Virtual reality
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm11113119

The ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) is essential to preserving functional independence and quality of life. In recent years, rehabilitation strategies based on new technologies, such as MYO Armband , have been implemented to improve dexterity in people with upper limb impairment. Over the last few years, many studies have been published focusing on the accuracy of the MYO Armband to capture electromyographic and inertial data, as well as the clinical effects of using it as a rehabilitation tool in people with loss of upper limb function. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic review of this subject. A systematically comprehensive literature search was conducted in order to identify original studies that answered the PICO question (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcome): What is the accuracy level and the clinical effects of the MYO Armband in people with motor impairment of the upper limb compared with other assessment techniques or interventions or no intervention whatsoever? The following data sources were used: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cochrane Library. After identifying the eligible articles, a cross-search of their references was also completed for additional studies. The following data were extracted from the papers: study design, disease or condition, intervention, sample, dosage, outcome measures or data collection procedure and data analysis and results. The authors independently collected these data following the CONSORT 2010 statement when possible, and eventually reached a consensus on the extracted data, resolving disagreements through discussion. To assess the methodological quality of papers included, the tool for the critical appraisal of epidemiological cross-sectional studies was used, since only case series studies were identified after the search. Additionally, the articles were classified according to the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation for diagnosis studies established by the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Also, The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used by two independent reviewers to assess risk of bias, assessing the six different domains. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed to carry out this review. 10 articles with a total 180 participants were included in the review. The characteristics of inclu