Functional assessment of the pelvic floor muscles by electromyography: is there a normalization in data analysis? A systematic review

ABSTRACT This study aims to evaluate the method of analysis of electromyographic data considering the functional assessment of pelvic floor muscles (PFM). We have included in our search strategy the following databases: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro, and IBECS, considering articles published in the last ten years (2004-2014). The identified articles were independently examined by two evaluators, according to these inclusion criteria: (1) population: female adults; (2) PFM assessment by electromyography (EMG) with vaginal/anal probe; and (3) description of how electromyographic data analysis is performed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias. We identified 508 articles, of which 23 were included in the review. The data showed differences between the collection protocols, and a significant number of studies did not normalize the electromyographic data. Physiotherapists are among the clinicians who most frequently use EMG to evaluate the function and dysfunction of the neuromuscular system. Although some previous studies have provided an overview to guide the evaluator in the assessment, few succeeding studies followed their recommendations.

摘要 本研究旨在结合盆底肌（pelvic floor muscles, PFM）的功能评估，对肌电数据的分析方法展开评价。本研究的检索策略涵盖以下数据库：Medline、PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库（Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials）、Cochrane系统评价数据库（Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews）、物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）以及IBECS，检索范围为2004-2014年近十年发表的文献。由两名评估者独立对检索获得的文献进行筛查，纳入标准如下：(1) 研究人群为成年女性；(2) 采用经阴道/肛门探头的肌电图（electromyography, EMG）开展盆底肌评估；(3) 明确描述肌电数据分析的实施流程。本研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, NOS）评估研究的偏倚风险。最终共检索到508篇文献，其中23篇被纳入本次综述。数据分析结果显示，不同研究的肌电数据采集方案存在差异，且相当比例的研究未对肌电数据进行标准化处理。物理治疗师是最常使用肌电图评估神经肌肉系统功能与功能障碍的临床工作者群体之一。尽管既往已有部分研究提供相关概述以指导评估者开展评估工作，但后续遵循其推荐方案的研究却寥寥无几。