The effects of training using EMG biofeedback on stroke patients upper extremity functions.

The paper does not say how the 30 participants were divided into groups, whether assessors were blinded, or whether anyone dropped out. The study included only patients with stroke onset six months or longer, Korean Mini-Mental State Examination score 24 or higher, Brunnstrom arm/hand stage 4 or higher, and no hemineglect, so results may not apply to acute stroke or more impaired patients. The control group received traditional rehabilitation five times per week for 30 minutes, while the experimental group received traditional rehabilitation plus biofeedback three times per week for 40 minutes, so session frequency differed. The paper does not state a primary outcome, making it unclear which result was intended to answer the main comparison. The results section reports no significant between-group difference for FMA or MFT, but the discussion reports a significant between-group difference, leaving the main comparison unclear. The sample size was small, and the authors state the results may not be generalizable to all stroke patients.

No funding or conflict-of-interest statement is provided in the supplied text.

Do not conclude that EMG biofeedback is clearly better than traditional rehabilitation. The between-group upper-limb test results were reported as not significantly different, the FIM average increases were 1.80 and 1.27, and the discussion also states a significant between-group difference, so the comparison is unclear.