Dataset Information

Neurofeedback for Pain Management: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Chronic pain is a significant global health issue. For most individuals with chronic pain, biomedical treatments do not provide adequate relief. Given the evidence that neurophysiological abnormalities are associated with pain, it is reasonable to consider treatments that target these factors, such as neurofeedback (NF). The primary objectives of this review were to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding: (1) the different types of NF and NF protocols that have been evaluated for pain management; (2) the evidence supporting each NF type and protocol; (3) if targeted brain activity changes occur with NF training; and (4) if such brain activity change is associated with improvements on treatment outcomes. Methods: Inclusion criteria were intentionally broad to encompass every empirical study using NF in relation to pain. We considered all kinds of NF, including both electroencephalogram- (EEG-) and functional magnetic resonance imagining- (fMRI-) based. We searched the following databases from inception through September 2019: Pubmed, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO. The search strategy consisted of a combination of key terms referring to all NF types and pain conditions (e.g., neurofeedback, rt-fMRI-NF, BOLD, pain, migraine). Results: A total of 6,552 citations were retrieved; 24 of these that were included in the review. Most of the studies were of moderate quality, included a control condition and but did not include a follow-up. They focused on studying pain intensity (83%), pain frequency, and other variables (fatigue, sleep, depression) in samples of adults (n = 7-71) with headaches, fibromyalgia and other pain conditions. Most studies (79%) used EEG-based NF. A wide variety of NF types and protocols have been used for pain management aiming to either increase, decrease or regulate brain activity in certain areas theoretically associated with pain. Conclusions: Given the generally positive results in the studies reviewed, the findings indicate that NF procedures have the potential for reducing pain and improving other related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. However, the current evidence does not provide definitive conclusions or allow for reliable recommendations on which protocols or methods of administration may be the most effective. These findings support the need for continued - but higher quality - research in this area.

SUBMITTER: Roy R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7378966 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Neurofeedback for Pain Management: A Systematic Review.

Roy Rubén R de la Vega Rocío R Jensen Mark P MP Miró Jordi J

Frontiers in neuroscience 20200716

<b>Background:</b> Chronic pain is a significant global health issue. For most individuals with chronic pain, biomedical treatments do not provide adequate relief. Given the evidence that neurophysiological abnormalities are associated with pain, it is reasonable to consider treatments that target these factors, such as neurofeedback (NF). The primary objectives of this review were to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding: (1) the different types of NF and NF protocols that have bee ...[more]

PMID: 32765208

Similar Datasets

Project description:Neurofeedback has been proposed as a treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) motor symptoms by changing the neural network activity directly linked with movement. However, the effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for PD motor symptoms is unclear. To systematically review the literature to identify the effects of neurofeedback in people with idiopathic PD; as defined by measurement of brain activity; motor function; and performance. A systematic review. Included Sources and Articles: PubMed; MEDLINE; Cinhal; PsychoInfo; Prospero; Cochrane; ClinicalTrials.gov; EMBASE; Web of Science; PEDro; OpenGrey; Conference Paper Index; Google Scholar; and eThos; searched using the Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) framework. Primary studies with the following designs were included: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs; quasi-experimental; pre/post studies; and case studies. This review included 11 studies out of 6197 studies that were identified from the literature search. Neuroimaging methods used were fMRI; scalp EEG; surface brain EEG; and deep brain EEG; where 10-15 Hz and the supplementary motor area were the most commonly targeted signatures for EEG and fMRI, respectively. Success rates for changing one's brain activity ranged from 47% to 100%; however, both sample sizes and success criteria differed considerably between studies. While six studies included a clinical outcome; a lack of consistent assessments prevented a reliable conclusion on neurofeedback's effectiveness. Narratively, fMRI neurofeedback has the greatest potential to improve PD motor symptoms. Two main limitations were found in the studies that contributed to the lack of a confident conclusion: (1) insufficient clinical information and perspectives (e.g., no reporting of adverse events), and (2) limitations in numerical data reporting (e.g., lack of explicit statistics) that prevented a meta-analysis. While fMRI neurofeedback was narratively the most effective treatment; the omission of clinical outcome measures in studies using other neurofeedback approaches limits comparison. Therefore, no single neurofeedback type can currently be identified as an optimal treatment for PD motor symptoms. This systematic review highlights the need to improve the inclusion of clinical information and more robust reporting of numerical data in future work. Neurofeedback appears to hold great potential as a treatment for PD motor symptoms. However, this field is still in its infancy and needs high quality RCTs to establish its effectiveness. Review Registration: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020191097).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pain is a common condition with a significant physical, psychosocial, and economic impact. Due to enormous progress in mobile device technology as well as the increase in smartphone ownership in the general population, mobile apps can be used to monitor patients with pain and support them in pain management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of smartphone or computer tablet apps in the management of patients with pain. METHODS:In December 2017, a literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. In addition, a bibliography search was conducted. We included studies with at least 20 participants per arm that evaluated the effects of apps on smartphones or computer tablets on improvement in pain. RESULTS:A total of 15 studies with 1962 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies examined the effect of mobile apps on pain management in an in-clinic setting and 11 in an out-clinic setting. The majority of the original studies reported beneficial effects of the use of a pain app. Severity of pain decreased in most studies where patients were using an app compared with patients not using an app. Other outcomes, such as worst pain or quality of life showed improvements in patients using an app. Due to heterogeneity between the original studies-patient characteristics, app content, and study setting-a synthesis of the results by statistical methods was not performed. CONCLUSIONS:Apps for pain management may be beneficial for patients, particularly in an out-clinic setting. Studies have shown that pain apps are workable and well liked by patients and health care professionals. There is no doubt that in the near future, mobile technologies will develop further. Medicine could profit from this development as indicated by our results, but there is a need for more scientific inputs. It is desirable to know which elements of apps or additional devices and tools may improve usability and help patients in pain management.

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain.Study designA systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain.MethodsData sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis.ResultsEvidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain.LimitationsLack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique.

Project description:BackgroundComplex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.Design and data sourcesA systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.ResultsOut of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.ConclusionsThe analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.

Project description:BackgroundPain ratings reported by patients with cancer continue to increase, and numerous computer and phone apps for managing cancer-related pain have been developed recently; however, whether these apps effectively alleviate patients' pain remains unknown.ObjectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the role of mobile apps in the management of cancer pain.MethodsLiterature on the use of apps for cancer pain management and interventions, published before August 2019, was retrieved from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The effects of apps on cancer pain were evaluated using RevMan5.3 software, and the rates of adverse drug reactions were analyzed using the R Statistical Software Package 3.5.3.ResultsA total of 13 studies were selected for the analysis: 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 before-after studies, 2 single-arm trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 1 prospective descriptive study. The 5 RCTs reported data for 487 patients (240 patients in the intervention group and 247 patients in the control group), and the remaining studies reported data for 428 patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of the RCTs. According to the meta-analysis, apps can significantly reduce pain scores (mean difference [MD]=-0.50, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.07, I2=62%, P=.02). We then used apps that have an instant messaging module for subgroup analysis; these apps significantly reduced patients' pain scores (MD=-0.67, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.28, I2=57%, P<.01). Patients using apps without an instant messaging module did not see a reduction in the pain score (MD=0.30, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.92, I2=70%, P=.71). Overall, patients were highly satisfied with using apps. Other outcomes, such as pain catastrophizing or quality of life, demonstrated greater improvement in patients using apps with instant messaging modules compared with patients not using an app.ConclusionsThe use of apps with instant messaging modules is associated with reduced pain scores in patients with cancer-related pain, and patient acceptance of these apps is high. Apps without instant messaging modules are associated with relatively higher pain scores. The presence of an instant messaging module may be a key factor affecting the effect of an app on cancer pain.

Dataset Information

Neurofeedback for Pain Management: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Neurofeedback for Pain Management: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets