Role of biofeedback systems in rehabilitation of patients with cerebral palsy: a systematic review
https://doi.org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2025.52
Abstract
Background. Cerebral palsy (CP) is the leading cause of childhood disability with a prevalence of 2–3 cases per 1,000 live births. Traditional rehabilitation methods often fail to provide objective real-time feedback. Biofeedback (BF) technologies represent a promising approach that allows neuroplasticity to be activated through conscious control of physiological parameters.
Objactive: Critical review and synthesis of available evidence on the role and effectiveness of BF systems in comprehensive rehabilitation of CP patients.
Material and methods. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Embase, CyberLeninka, and eLibrary databases. The search depth was from 1965 to November 2025. The inclusion criteria were: studies that employed BF technologies in CP patients and reported measurable motor outcomes. The quality of the conducted research was assessed using the PEDro, Downs and Black, SCED scales, as well as the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.
Results. In total, 27 publications were selected for analysis, including 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 7 randomized controlled trials, and 9 primary studies of other designs, covering a total of more than 1,000 participants. EMG biofeedback statistically significantly improves gait velocity (p<0.05) and upper extremity function (evidence level 1b–2a). Stabilometric systems are effective in correcting postural control (level 2a). Neurofeedback demonstrates potential for neuroplasticity modulation in patients with severe CP, albeit with a limited evidence base (level 2b–3).
Conclusion. BF systems are an effective adjunct to conventional physical therapy in CP, providing objective progress monitoring and high patient motivation. Standardization of intervention protocols and expanding access to portable BF systems for home-based use remain priority areas.
About the Authors
L. R. Kadyrova
Kazan State Medical Academy – branch of Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lidia R. Kadyrova, PhD, Assoc. Prof.
11 Mushtari, Kazan 420012
A. N. Karaisaev
Regional Treatment and Rehabilitation Center
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anar N. Karaisaev
11/2 Shchors Str., Tyumen 625048
References
1. MacIntosh A., Lam E., Vigneron V., et al. Biofeedback interventions for individuals with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019; 41 (20): 2369–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1468933.
2. Oskoui M., Coutinho F., Dykeman J., et al. An update on the prevalence of cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013; 55 (6): 509–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12080.
3. Egorov A.V., Yakovleva S.K., Petrova R.V., Preobrazhenskaya E.V. The effectiveness of the biofeedback complex in the treatment of children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled study. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2025; 24 (2): 8–19 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2025-24-2-8-19.
4. Behboodi A., Lee W.A., Hinchberger V.S., Damiano D.L. Determining optimal mobile neurofeedback methods for motor neurorehabilitation in children and adults with non-progressive neurological disorders: a scoping review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022; 19: 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01082-6.
5. He M.X., Lei C.J., Zhong D.L., et al. The effectiveness and safety of electromyography biofeedback therapy for motor dysfunction of children with cerebral palsy: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019; 98 (33): e16786. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016786.
6. Giggins O.M., Persson U.M., Caulfield B. Biofeedback in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013; 10: 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-10-60.
7. Schless S.H., Sorek G., Schurr I., et al. Effectiveness of treadmill-based virtual-reality biofeedback training to improve gait function in children and adolescents with congenital and acquired brain injury. Sci Rep. 2025; 16 (1): 2133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31852-y.
8. Tate J.J., Milner C.E. Real-time kinematic, temporospatial, and kinetic biofeedback during gait retraining in patients: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2010; 90 (8): 1123–34. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080281.
9. Lerma-Castaño P.R., Chanaga-Gelves M.V., Llanos-Mosquera J.M., et al. Virtual reality in gait rehabilitation in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Rev Mex Neurocienc. 2022; 23 (1): 29–33. https://doi.org/10.24875/rmn.21000001.
10. Liu C., Wang X., Chen R., Zhang J. The effects of virtual reality training on balance, gross motor function, and daily living ability in children with cerebral palsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Serious Games. 2022; 10 (4): e38972. https://doi.org/10.2196/38972.
11. Mesa-Burbano A.E., Fernández-Polo M.A., Hurtado-Sánchez J.S., et al. Effects of virtual reality use on children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Healthcare. 2025; 13 (20): 2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13202571.
12. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
13. Armijo-Olivo S., Stiles C.R., Hagen N.A., et al. PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (7): e0132634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132634.
14. Downs S.H., Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52 (6): 377–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377.
15. MacIntosh A., Vignais N., Biddiss E. Biofeedback interventions for people with cerebral palsy: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017; 6 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0405-y.
16. Larina N.V., Pavlenko V.B., Korsunskaya L.L., et al. Rehabilitation possibilities for children with cerebral palsy through the use of robotic devices and biofeedback. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2020; 19 (3): 156–65 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2020-3-156-165.
17. Burchfield S.J., Shierk A., Truong C., Blankenship R. Wearable neurotechnology systems for upper extremity rehabilitation in children with cerebral palsy: a scoping review. Front Neurol. 2025; 16: 1663596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1663596.
18. Birukova E.A., Orekhova L.S., Pavlenko V.B., et al. Rehabilitation of speech functions in children with cerebral palsy. Scientific Notes of the Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Biology. Chemistry. 2022; 8 (4): 29–39 (in Russ.).
19. Carvalho I., Pinto S.M., Chagas D.D.V., et al. Robotic gait training for individuals with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98 (11): 2332–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.018.
20. Shumway-Cook A., Hutchinson S., Kartin D., et al. Effect of balance training on recovery of stability in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003; 45 (9): 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2003.tb00963.x.
21. Yun C.K., Yoo J.N. The effects of visual biofeedback balance training on functional ability in children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2016; 11 (3): 133–9. https://doi.org/10.13066/kspm.2016.11.3.133.
22. Pyrzanowska W., Chrościńska-Krawczyk M., Bonikowski M. Long-term improvement of gait kinematics in young children with cerebral palsy treated with botulinum toxin injections and integrated/intensive rehabilitation: a 5-year retrospective observational study. Toxins. 2025; 17 (3): 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins17030142.
23. Nefedeva D.L., Abdrakhmanova L.I., Bodrova R.A. Effectiveness of the Walkbot system in patients with infantile cerebral palsy. Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical Rehabilitation. 2024; 6 (3): 253–62 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.36425/rehab631151.
24. Ikoeva G.A., Nikityuk I.E., Kivoenko O.I., et al. Clinical, neurological, and neurophysiological evaluation of the efficiency of motor rehabilitation in children with cerebral palsy using robotic mechanotherapy and transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the spinal cord. Pediatric Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2016; 4 (4): 47–55. https://doi.org/10.17816/PTORS4447-55.
25. Booth A.T.C., Buizer A.I., Meyns P., et al. The efficacy of functional gait training in children and young adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018; 60 (9): 866–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13708.
26. Rattanatharn R. Effect of EMG biofeedback to improve hand function in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2018; 101 (12): 1621–8.
27. Ashrafova U.Sh., Mamedyarov A.M., Karmazina E.K., et al. The effectiveness of using the HandTutor hand simulator and stabilometric postural control using the biofeedback tear in preschool and primary school children with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Pharmacology. 2024; 21 (6): 481–91 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v21i6.2839.
28. Bugun O.V., Mashanskaya A.V., Atalyan A.V., et al. Comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with movement disorders with spastic forms of cerebral palsy. Acta Biomedica Scientifica. 2021; 6 (6-2): 82–91 (in Russ.). https://doi/10.29413/ABS.2021-6.6-2.9.
29. Booth A.T., Buizer A.I., Harlaar J., et al. Immediate effects of immersive biofeedback on gait in children with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 100 (4): 598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.10.013.
30. De Mulder T., Adams H., Dewit T., et al. A comparison of the immediate effects of verbal and virtual reality feedback on gait in children with cerebral palsy. Children. 2024; 11 (5): 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050524.
31. Moreau N.G., Bodkin A.W., Bjornson K., et al. Effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions to improve gait speed in children with cerebral palsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2016; 96 (12): 1938–54. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150401.
32. Klochkova O.A., Mamedyarov A.M., Ashraphova U.Sh., et al. Robotic mechanotherapy in the comprehensive rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy in the early period after selective dorsal rhizotomy: a prospective non-randomized study. Pediatric Pharmacology. 2025; 22 (5): 544–52 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v22i5.2960.
33. Wang Y., Zhang P., Li C. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of robot-assisted gait training on lower limb function in patients with cerebral palsy. Neurol Sci. 2023; 44 (11): 3863–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-023-06964-w.
34. Cardone D., Perpetuini D., Di Nicola M., et al. Robot-assisted upper limb therapy for personalized rehabilitation in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Front Neurol. 2025; 15: 1499249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1499249.
Review
For citations:
Kadyrova L.R., Karaisaev A.N. Role of biofeedback systems in rehabilitation of patients with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Rehabilitation. 2025;3(4):252-262. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2025.52
Views:
42
JATS XML
Email this article 