| Literature DB >> 19368705 |
Laura Bazzichi1, Marco Dini, Alessandra Rossi, Silvia Corbianco, Francesca De Feo, Camillo Giacomelli, Cristina Zirafa, Claudia Ferrari, Bruno Rossi, Stefano Bombardieri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have been carried out in order to investigate surface electromyography (SEMG) response on fibromyalgic (FM) patients. Some studies failed to demonstrate differences between FM patients and healthy individuals while others found differences in SEMG parameters. Different muscular region have been analyzed in FM patients and heterogeneity is also produced because of the different ways in which the SEMG technique is used. The aims of this study were to evaluate muscle modifications by SEMG analysis in FM women with respect to a sample of healthy controls and to investigate the relationships between SEMG parameters and the clinical aspects of the disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19368705 PMCID: PMC2678091 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-36
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Background variables of FM patients (N = 100) and controls (N = 50). (Values are expressed as mean ± SD).
| Age (years) | 48.10 ± 11.96 | 48.60 ± 11.18 |
| Duration of disease (years) | 6.04 ± 6.12 | - |
| FIQ | 60.95 ± 17.48 | 8.50 ± 5.72 |
| TP | 15.49 ± 4.33 | 2.75 ± 1.80 |
| Fatigue | 7.15 ± 2.46 | 0.25 ± 0.40 |
| Pain | 7.01 ± 2.46 | 0 |
| Stiffness | 6.95 ± 2.45 | 1.60 ± 2.10 |
FIQ: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; TP: tender point.
Absolute basal (t = 0 secs) and final values (t = 30 secs) (mean ± SD) of MDF, CV and FI of FM patients and controls.
| MDF (μV) | CV (m/sec) | MDF (μV) | CV (m/sec) | |
| Basal (t = 0 secs) | 93.2* ± 6.0 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 138.2* ± 5.1 | 5.1 ± 0.5 |
| Final (t = 30 secs) | 72.6 ± 3.9 | 3.1 ± 0.3 | 86.1 ± 2 | 3.4 ± 0.3 |
| Fatigue Index | 1.10* | 0.89* | 2.41* | 1.66* |
MDF: median spectral frequency; CV: conduction velocity
MDF and CV are expressed as absolute values. Mean ± SD of MDF, CV and FI are calculated
on 100 patients and 50 controls.
*Basal MDF controls vs basal MDF FM, p < 0.0001
*Fatigue Index controls (MDF and CV) vs Fatigue Index FM (MDF and CV), p < 0.0001
Figure 1Normalized values of MDF in FM patients and controls (0–30 sec).
Figure 2Normalized values of CV in FM patients and controls (0–30 sec).