Efficacy of biofeedback in rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a frequent reason for consultation and the main cause of disability in population. Electromyographic biofeedback or myofeedback (MF) is a promising treatment in rehabilitation, although studies supporting its benefits in MSD have declined in recent years. The objective of this review was to describe the efficacy of MF in function recovery, strength increase and muscle relaxation in MSD. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cinahl and Science Direct databases dated September 2, 2021. Four independent researchers reviewed articles titles and abstracts to determine their eligibility. Risk of bias and articles quality was assessed using Rob2 tool (Cochrane) and PEDro scale. Functionality improvement, strength increase, and muscle relaxation were considered as main outcome. Search strategy yielded 160 articles after eliminating duplicates, reducing to 26 when selection criteria were applied. Articles were classified in strengthening (n = 16) and muscle relaxation (n = 10) according to MF therapeutic aim. Eighteen articles were rated as low risk of bias (69.22%) and an average internal validity of 6 points was obtained. Studies showed improvements in functionality, strength increase and pain reduction with statistical significance when MF were complemented with therapeutic exercises or other physical agents modalities (p < 0.005). MF also showed a decrease in fear of movement, depression, and pain perception, suggesting central modulating effects. This review supports MF efficacy in MSD rehabilitation, showing improvements in functionality and pain reduction. The review allowed to establish a dosage recommendation based on articles analysis which can be considered for future RCTs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Two reviews evaluated neuro/biofeedback interventions following injury and both reported moderate to high-level evidence for these interventions being beneficial for distress-related outcomes.
“Two reviews evaluated neuro/biofeedback interventions following injury and both reported moderate to high-level evidence for these interventions being beneficial for distress-related outcomes.48 49”
From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [49]
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports decreases in fear of movement and depression with myofeedback, supporting a benefit for distress-related outcomes. The Discussion reports good internal validity for many included trials, but the review does not grade the evidence for those outcomes as moderate to high; it also covers musculoskeletal disorders broadly, not only rehabilitation following injury. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Abdel Shaheed C, Maher CG, Williams KA, Day R, McLachlan AJ. Efficacy, tolerability, and dose-depen- dent effects of opioid analgesics for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016; 176(7): 958-68.
- Raven EEJ, Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, van Montfo- ort DO, Pöll RG, Blankevoort L, et al. Construct va- lidity and reliability of the disability of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire for upper extremity complaints in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008; 35(12): 2334-8.
- Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Oste- oarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) -validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1(1): 17.
- Cano-de-la-Cuerda R, Molero-Sánchez A, Carratalá- Tejada M, Alguacil-Diego IM, Molina-Rueda F, Mian- golarra-Page JC, et al. Teorías y modelos de control y aprendizaje motor. Aplicaciones clínicas en neurorre- habilitación. Neurologia. 2015; 30(1): 32-41.
- Johnson DS. The spasm-pain-spasm cycle. Pain Med. 2012; 13(4): 615.
- Authors
- de la Barra Ortiz, H. A., Matamala, A. M., Inostroza, F. L., Araya, C. L., & Mondaca, V. N.
- Affiliations
- Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Laboratory , Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Physical Therapy, Universidad Andres Bello , Chile
- Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Advances in Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2022-02-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-69
- ISSN
- 0860-6161 (ISSN-L)
- 1734-4948
- OpenAlex
- W4210540192
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Advances in Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- EMG biofeedback, myofeedback, musculoskeletal disorders, rehabilitation, muscle strength, muscle relaxation, analgesia, kinesiophobia, physical activity, treatment dosage
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
