Biofeedback, Psychology
Research Papers
Showing 6 of 33Effectiveness of Biofeedback in Individuals with Awake Bruxism Compared to Other Types of Treatment: A Systematic Review
Excessive masticatory muscle activity is generally present in awake bruxism, which is related to increased anxiety and stress. It has been hypothesized that biofeedback could potentially manage awake bruxism, however, its effectiveness has not been empirically analyzed in a systematic manner. Therefore, this systematic review was designed to determine the effectiveness of biofeedback compared to other therapies in adults with awake bruxism. Extensive searches in five databases looking for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included biofeedback to manage awake bruxism were targeted. The risk of bias (RoB) assessment was conducted using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. Overall, four studies were included in this systematic review, all of which used the electromyographic activity of the masticatory muscles during the day and night as the main endpoint. Auditory and visual biofeedback could reduce the excessive level of masticatory muscle activity in a few days of intervention. The majority of the included studies had a high RoB and only one study had a low RoB. The standardization of the biofeedback protocols was also inconsistent, which makes it difficult to establish the ideal protocol for the use of biofeedback in awake bruxism. Thus, it is proposed that future studies seek to reduce methodological risks and obtain more robust samples.
View Full Paper →Neurophysiological Approach by Self-Control of Your Stress-Related Autonomic Nervous System with Depression, Stress and Anxiety Patients
BACKGROUND: Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB) is a treatment in which patients learn self-regulation of a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve function. While the therapeutic approach of HRVB is promising for a variety of disorders, it has not yet been regularly offered in a mental health treatment setting. AIM: To provide a systematic review about the efficacy of HRV-Biofeedback in treatment of anxiety, depression, and stress related disorders. METHOD: Systematic review in PubMed and Web of Science in 2020 with terms HRV, biofeedback, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, panic disorder, and anxiety disorder. Selection, critical appraisal, and description of the Random Controlled Trials (RCT) studies. Combined with recent meta-analyses. RESULTS: The search resulted in a total of 881 studies. After critical appraisal, nine RCTs have been selected as well as two other relevant studies. The RCTs with control groups treatment as usual, muscle relaxation training and a "placebo"-biofeedback instrument revealed significant clinical efficacy and better results compared with control conditions, mostly significant. In the depression studies average reduction at the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale was 64% (HRVB plus Treatment as Usual (TAU) versus 25% (control group with TAU) and 30% reduction (HRVB) at the PSQ scale versus 7% (control group with TAU). In the PTSD studies average reduction at the BDI-scale was 53% (HRV plus TAU) versus 24% (control group with TAU) and 22% (HRVB) versus 10% (TAU) with the PTSD Checklist (PCL). In other systematic reviews significant effects have been shown for HRV-Biofeedback in treatment of asthma, coronary artery disease, sleeping disorders, postpartum depression and stress and anxiety. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows significant improvement of the non-invasive HRVB training in stress related disorders like PTSD, depression, and panic disorder, in particular when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy or different TAU. Effects were visible after four weeks of training, but clinical practice in a longer daily self-treatment of eight weeks is more promising. More research to integrate HRVB in treatment of stress related disorders in psychiatry is warranted, as well as research focused on the neurophysiological mechanisms.
View Full Paper →An Integrative Model for the Effectiveness of Biofeedback Interventions for Anxiety Regulation: Viewpoint
Biofeedback has shown to be a promising tool for the treatment of anxiety; however, several theoretical as well as practical limitations have prevented widespread adaptation until now. With current technological advances and the increasing interest in the use of self-monitoring technology to improve mental health, we argue that this is an ideal time to launch a new wave of biofeedback training. In this viewpoint paper, we reflect on the current state of biofeedback training, including the more traditional techniques and mechanisms that have been thought to explain the effectiveness of biofeedback such as the integration of operant learning and meditation techniques, and the changes in interoceptive awareness and physiology. Subsequently, we propose an integrative model that includes a set of cognitive appraisals as potential determinants of adaptive trajectories within biofeedback training such as growth mindset, self-efficacy, locus of control, and threat-challenge appraisals. Finally, we present a set of detailed guidelines based on the integration of our model with the mechanics and mechanisms offered by emerging interactive technology to encourage a new phase of research and implementation using biofeedback. There is a great deal of promise for future biofeedback interventions that harness the power of wearables and video games, and that adopt a user-centered approach to help people regulate their anxiety in a way that feels engaging, personal, and meaningful.
View Full Paper →Efficacy of Biofeedback for Medical Conditions: an Evidence Map
BACKGROUND: Biofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research. METHODS: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps. RESULTS: We included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies. DISCUSSION: Available evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.
View Full Paper →Mixed exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia
BACKGROUND: Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for fibromyalgia that will replace the review titled "Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome", which was first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of mixed exercise training protocols that include two or more types of exercise (aerobic, resistance, flexibility) for adults with fibromyalgia against control (treatment as usual, wait list control), non exercise (e.g. biofeedback), or other exercise (e.g. mixed versus flexibility) interventions.Specific comparisons involving mixed exercise versus other exercises (e.g. resistance, aquatic, aerobic, flexibility, and whole body vibration exercises) were not assessed. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Thesis and Dissertations Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Physiotherapy Evidence Databese (PEDro), Current Controlled Trials (to 2013), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, to identify all potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared mixed exercise interventions with other or no exercise interventions. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs (2088 participants; 98% female; average age 51 years) that compared mixed exercise interventions (including at least two of the following: aerobic or cardiorespiratory, resistance or muscle strengthening exercise, and flexibility exercise) versus control (e.g. wait list), non-exercise (e.g. biofeedback), and other exercise interventions. Design flaws across studies led to selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting biases. We prioritised the findings of mixed exercise compared to control and present them fully here.Twenty-one trials (1253 participants) provided moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes but stiffness (low quality). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement; we used a clinically important difference between groups of 15% relative difference). Results for mixed exercise versus control show that mean HRQL was 56 and 49 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (13 studies; 610 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (3% better to 11% better) and relative improvement of 12% (6% better to 18% better). Mean pain was 58.6 and 53 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (15 studies; 832 participants) with absolute improvement of 5% (1% better to 9% better) and relative improvement of 9% (3% better to 15% better). Mean fatigue was 72 and 59 points in the control and exercise groups, respectively (1 study; 493 participants) with absolute improvement of 13% (8% better to 18% better) and relative improvement of 18% (11% better to 24% better). Mean stiffness was 68 and 61 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (5 studies; 261 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (1% better to 12% better) and relative improvement of 9% (1% better to 17% better). Mean physical function was 49 and 38 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (9 studies; 477 participants) with absolute improvement of 11% (7% better to 15% better) and relative improvement of 22% (14% better to 30% better). Pooled analysis resulted in a moderate-quality risk ratio for all-cause withdrawals with similar rates across groups (11 per 100 and 12 per 100 in the control and intervention groups, respectively) (19 studies; 1065 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.51) with an absolute change of 1% (3% fewer to 5% more) and a relative change of 11% (28% fewer to 47% more). Across all 21 studies, no injuries or other adverse events were reported; however some participants experienced increased fibromyalgia symptoms (pain, soreness, or tiredness) during or after exercise. However due to low event rates, we are uncertain of the precise risks with exercise. Mixed exercise may improve HRQL and physical function and may decrease pain and fatigue; all-cause withdrawal was similar across groups, and mixed exercises may slightly reduce stiffness. For fatigue, physical function, HRQL, and stiffness, we cannot rule in or out a clinically relevant change, as the confidence intervals include both clinically important and unimportant effects.We found very low-quality evidence on long-term effects. In eight trials, HRQL, fatigue, and physical function improvement persisted at 6 to 52 or more weeks post intervention but improvements in stiffness and pain did not persist. Withdrawals and adverse events were not measured.It is uncertain whether mixed versus other non-exercise or other exercise interventions improve HRQL and physical function or decrease symptoms because the quality of evidence was very low. The interventions were heterogeneous, and results were often based on small single studies. Adverse events with these interventions were not measured, and thus uncertainty surrounds the risk of adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that mixed exercise probably improves HRQL, physical function, and fatigue, but this improvement may be small and clinically unimportant for some participants; physical function shows improvement in all participants. Withdrawal was similar across groups. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed exercise may slightly improve stiffness. Very low-quality evidence indicates that we are 'uncertain' whether the long-term effects of mixed exercise are maintained for all outcomes; all-cause withdrawals and adverse events were not measured. Compared to other exercise or non-exercise interventions, we are uncertain about the effects of mixed exercise because we found only very low-quality evidence obtained from small, very heterogeneous trials. Although mixed exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety. We downgraded the evidence from these trials due to imprecision (small trials), selection bias (e.g. allocation), blinding of participants and care providers or outcome assessors, and selective reporting.
View Full Paper →The efficacy of biofeedback approaches for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Biofeedback is applied to target excessive and/or deficient physiological signals to help patients identifying and self-managing their symptoms. Biofeedback has been employed in psychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), mainly by using neural signals - neurofeedback. Recently, OCD has been integrated into the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCD&RD) category (body dysmorphic, hoarding, trichotillomania/hair-pulling, and excoriation/skin-picking disorders). The efficacy of biofeedback for OCD&RD is still unknown. Our work provides a complete overview of publications assessing the therapeutic efficacy of biofeedback in OCD&RD with a systematic review and meta-analysis. We found ten studies involving 102 OCD participants (three randomized controlled trials) mostly applying neurofeedback (one publication used thermal biofeedback). Five neurofeedback studies were selected for meta-analysis (89 patients; two randomized controlled trials). The overall effect size within the treatment group varied between medium to large, but high heterogeneity and inconsistency values were found. The methodological quality was low indicating a high risk of bias. In conclusion, a beneficial effect of neurofeedback for OCD patients was found but also critical limitations on methodology, high heterogeneity among studies, and a putative reporting bias. Future research following high-quality guidelines should be conducted to address the efficacy of biofeedback approaches for OCD&RD.
View Full Paper →Ready to Optimize Your Brain?
Schedule a free consultation to discuss biofeedback, psychology and how neurofeedback training can help
Or call us directly at 855-88-BRAIN
View Programs & Pricing →