OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the available evidence regarding the effect of augmented feedback on motor function of the upper extremity in rehabilitation patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of augmented feedback on motor function. Two reviewers systematically assessed the methodological quality of the trials. The reported effects were examined to evaluate the effect of therapeutic interventions using augmented feedback and to identify a possible relationship with patient characteristics, type of intervention, or methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials were included, 9 of which reported a positive effect on arm function tests. Follow-up measurements were performed in 8 trials, 1 of which reported a positive effect. Different therapeutic interventions using augmented feedback, i.e. electromyographic biofeedback, kinetic feedback, kinematic feedback, or knowledge of results, show no difference in effectiveness. CONCLUSION: No firm evidence was found of effectiveness regarding the use of augmented feedback to improve motor function of the upper extremity in rehabilitation patients. Future studies should focus more on the content, form and timing of augmented feedback concerning the therapeutic intervention. It should be emphasized that motor learning effects can only be determined by re-examining the population after a follow-up period.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the available evidence regarding the effect of augmented feedback on motor function of the upper extremity in rehabilitation patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of augmented feedback on motor function. Two reviewers systematically assessed the methodological quality of the trials. The reported effects were examined to evaluate the effect of therapeutic interventions using augmented feedback and to identify a possible relationship with patient characteristics, type of intervention, or methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials were included, 9 of which reported a positive effect on arm function tests. Follow-up measurements were performed in 8 trials, 1 of which reported a positive effect. Different therapeutic interventions using augmented feedback, i.e. electromyographic biofeedback, kinetic feedback, kinematic feedback, or knowledge of results, show no difference in effectiveness. CONCLUSION: No firm evidence was found of effectiveness regarding the use of augmented feedback to improve motor function of the upper extremity in rehabilitation patients. Future studies should focus more on the content, form and timing of augmented feedback concerning the therapeutic intervention. It should be emphasized that motor learning effects can only be determined by re-examining the population after a follow-up period.
Authors: Alex Pollock; Sybil E Farmer; Marian C Brady; Peter Langhorne; Gillian E Mead; Jan Mehrholz; Frederike van Wijck Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Ryanne J M Lemmens; Annick A A Timmermans; Yvonne J M Janssen-Potten; Rob J E M Smeets; Henk A M Seelen Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 2.474