Increasing Value and Reducing Waste of Research on Neurofeedback Effects in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A State-of-the-Art-Review

• Published in: Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 23 - 45
• Main Authors: Marcu, Gabriela Mariana, Dumbravă, Andrei, Băcilă, Ionuţ-Ciprian, Szekely-Copîndean, Raluca Diana, Zăgrean, Ana-Maria
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.03.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Biofeedback; Electroencephalography; Feedback; Health Psychology; Humans; Medical research; Neurofeedback; Post traumatic stress disorder; Psychology; Psychotherapy - methods; Psychotherapy and Counseling; Public Health; Quality of Life; Reviews; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic - psychology; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic - therapy; Treatment Outcome; Review; Metascience; Research waste; Neurofeedback; Post-traumatic stress disorder
• ISSN: 1090-0586; 1573-3270
• DOI: 10.1007/s10484-023-09610-5

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often considered challenging to treat due to factors that contribute to its complexity. In the last decade, more attention has been paid to non-pharmacological or non-psychological therapies for PTSD, including neurofeedback (NFB). NFB is a promising non-invasive technique targeting specific brainwave patterns associated with psychiatric symptomatology. By learning to regulate brain activity in a closed-loop paradigm, individuals can improve their functionality while reducing symptom severity. However, owing to its lax regulation and heterogeneous legal status across different countries, the degree to which it has scientific support as a psychiatric treatment remains controversial. In this state-of-the-art review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE and identified meta-analyses and systematic reviews exploring the efficacy of NFB for PTSD. We included seven systematic reviews, out of which three included meta-analyses (32 studies and 669 participants) that targeted NFB as an intervention while addressing a single condition—PTSD. We used the MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and the criteria described by Cristea and Naudet (Behav Res Therapy 123:103479, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103479 ) to identify sources of research waste and increasing value in biomedical research. The seven assessed reviews had an overall extremely poor quality score (5 critically low, one low, one moderate, and none high) and multiple sources of waste while opening opportunities for increasing value in the NFB literature. Our research shows that it remains unclear whether NFB training is significantly beneficial in treating PTSD. The quality of the investigated literature is low and maintains a persistent uncertainty over numerous points, which are highly important for deciding whether an intervention has clinical efficacy. Just as importantly, none of the reviews we appraised explored the statistical power, referred to open data of the included studies, or adjusted their pooled effect sizes for publication bias and risk of bias. Based on the obtained results, we identified some recurrent sources of waste (such as a lack of research decisions based on sound questions or using an appropriate methodology in a fully transparent, unbiased, and useable manner) and proposed some directions for increasing value (homogeneity and consensus) in designing and reporting research on NFB interventions in PTSD.