The reliability of surface EMG recorded from the pelvic floor muscles
The reliability of surface EMG recorded from the pelvic floor muscles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.05.027
复制
发表时间：
2009-08-30
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
McLean, Linda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Auchincloss, Cindy C.;McLean, Linda
盆底肌（PFMs）的神经肌肉功能经常被评估使用表面电极嵌入阴道探头。本研究的目的是确定在受试者执行PFM最大自主收缩和咳嗽任务时，使用两种不同的阴道探针从PFM记录的肌电图数据在试验期间和一天之间的可靠性。在受试者执行任务时，使用Femiscan （TM）和Periform （TM）阴道探针获取肌电图数据。使用滑动窗技术计算每个器械、任务和骨盆底侧面的峰值均方根值幅度。采用类内相关系数（ICCs）和变异系数（CV）评价试验间信度。采用ICCs、Pearson相关系数、计算天之间的平均绝对差和计算每个仪器和任务的测量标准误差（SEM）来确定试验间信度。在左、右PFM之间检测到肌电图振幅差异（p < 0.05），因此对每侧分别进行所有分析。总体而言，Femiscan （TM）的试验间信度从中等到高（ICC(3.1) = 0.58-0.98， CV=8.5-20.7%）， Periform （TM）的试验间信度从良好到高（ICC(3.1) =0.80-0.98， CV= 8.6 -19.5%），然而两种阴道探针的试验间信度通常较差（ICC(3.1) = 0.08-0.84）。结果表明，虽然使用PFM表面肌电图作为训练目的的生物反馈工具是可以接受的，但在评估PFM功能时，不建议将其用于受试者之间的比较或用作隔天之间的结果测量。(C) 2009 Elsevier B.V.版权所有
The neuromuscular function of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) is frequently evaluated using surface electrodes embedded on vaginal probes. The purpose of this study was to determine the between-trial and between-day reliability of EMG data recorded from the PFM using two different vaginal probes while subjects performed PFM maximum voluntary contractions and a coughing task. The Femiscan (TM) and the Periform (TM) vaginal probes were used to acquire EMG data while the subjects performed the tasks. Peak RMS amplitudes were computed for each instrument, task, and side of the pelvic floor using a sliding window technique. The between-trial reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficients of variation (CV). Between-trial reliability was determined using ICCs, Pearson's correlation coefficients, computing the mean absolute difference between days, and calculating the standard error the measurement (SEM) for each instrument and task. EMG amplitude differences were detected between the left and right PFM (p < 0.05), therefore all of the analyses were performed separately for each side. Overall, between-trial reliability was fair to high for the Femiscan (TM) (ICC(3,1) = 0.58-0.98, CV=8.5-20.7%) and good to high for the Periform (TM) (ICC(3.1) =0.80-0.98, CV=9.6-19.5%), however between-day reliability was generally poor for both vaginal probes (ICC(3,1) = 0.08-0.84). The results suggest that although it is acceptable to use PFM surface EMG as a biofeedback tool for training purposes, it is not recommended for use to make between-subject comparisons or to use as an outcome measure between-days when evaluating PFM function. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.