Is surface EMG biofeedback an effective training method for persons with neck and shoulder complaints after whiplash-associated disorders concerning activities of daily living and pain — a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of surface electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback training as a supplement to an interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme regarding consequences for activities of daily living and pain. DESIGN: A randomized controlled unblinded trial. SETTINGS: The study was carried out in a pain unit at a rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: Sixty-five people with chronic whiplash-associated disorders consecutively referred to the pain unit agreed to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. INTERVENTION: All participants received interdisciplinary rehabilitation and the treatment group also had four weeks of surface EMG biofeedback training. MAIN MEASURES: The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used at admission discharge and at six-month follow-up to register changes in activities of daily living. The Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Swedish version, was used at admission and at six-month follow-up to capture the multidimensional aspects of pain. RESULTS: Sixty-two people completed the study. Both treatment and control groups improved significantly according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure at discharge and the results remained after six months (P<0.001). The subscale 'Interference' on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory was significantly decreased at six months for the treatment group (P<0.001). No differences were found between the two groups for activities of daily living (performance P = 0.586; satisfaction P = 0.988) at follow-up or for pain level (P = 0.914), indicating no additional effect of the surface EMG biofeedback training. CONCLUSION: In this study there was no support for the effectiveness of surface EMG biofeedback training as a supplement to an interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme for people with long-lasting pain after whiplash.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".