Table 3
EMG methodological quality evaluation
| Article reference | ||||||||||||
| Domain | De Mey et al53 | Hardwick et al54 | Kaur et al55 | Kibler et al56 | Maenhout et al57 | Maenhout et al58 | Nagai et al59 | Nakamura et al52 | Smith et al60 | Tsuruike and Ellenbecker61 | Uhl et al62 | Yamauchi et al63 |
| EMG detection of signal | 4.00 | 3.50 | 4.00 | 3.75 | 4.75 | 4.75 | 4.80 | 4.75 | 3.75 | 3.75 | 3.75 | 4.50 |
| Processing signals | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| Evaluation of EMG levels/patterns | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Evaluation of EMG timing | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1.0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Procedures | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| Analysis | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Total scores | 10.00 | 7.50 | 10.00 | 9.75 | 10.75 | 10.75 | 9.8 | 10.75 | 7.75 | 8.75 | 7.75 | 10.50 |
| % Quality scores | 83% | 62% | 83% | 75% | 90% | 90% | 82% | 90% | 64% | 73% | 64% | 88% |
Shades of grey for visual between-study comparison only:
, ≤70%; , ≥70%–79%; , ≥80%.EMG, electromyography; N/A, not assessed.
