Effectiveness of myoelectric wearable orthoses for upper extremity functional recovery in spinal cord injury- a pilot study.

Only ten participants were analysed, three to four per group, which the authors state was likely underpowered to detect anything but large effects. Outcome assessors were not blinded to group assignment, which could bias the measured range of motion and grip force. The control group received a bundle of conventional techniques including therapeutic exercise, mirror therapy, neuromuscular facilitation, dynamic taping and manual therapy, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. The home plus clinic group had about two hours of extra weekly practice, so the benefit of the device itself cannot be separated from the greater total volume of training. Outcomes were measured only immediately after training, with no follow-up to see whether gains were retained. No validated activities of daily living or quality of life instruments were used, so real-world functional impact is unknown. The groups were unbalanced and hand dominance and affected side were not stratified or analysed because of the small sample.

Funding was provided by the Department of Defense, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. No commercial sponsor of the MyoPro device is named, and no author disclosures are reported in the supplied text.

Do not read the 36.5% and 28.5% gains on the trained arm as proof the orthosis beats conventional therapy. Those are within-group changes from baseline, and the between-group comparison on the trained arm was not significant (p = 0.134 and p = 0.566). The only significant difference was for grip in the opposite, untrained hand, a secondary outcome in ten participants with no correction for multiple comparisons.