List of applicatiobns in Biofeedback/Neurofeedback and level of efficacy.
The use of psychophysiological in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback has been the aim of a lot of research. The below overview of applications has been developed by the Task Force of the Association for Applied Psyschophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) and the Society for Neuronal Regulation, based on guidelines for the evalutation of clinical efficacy of psychophysiological interventions (Moss, Gunkelman, 2002).
Efficacious and specific (fifth level)
1. Urinary incontinence in females
Efficacious (fourth level)
2. Attention deficit disorder (ADHD)
3. Chronic pain
6. Headache (adult) – tension headache/migraine/mixed
8. Motion sickness
9. Raynaud's disease
10. Temperomandibular disorders
Probably efficacious (third level)
1. Alcoholism/Substance abuse
3. Diabetes Mellitus
4. Fecal disorder children
5. Fecal incontinence adult
6. Headache – Pediatric
8. Urinary incontinence males
9. Traumatic Brain Inury
10. Vulvar vestibulitis
Possibly efficacious (third level)
3. Bell's Palsy
4. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
5. Coronary artery disease
6. Cystic fibrosis
7. Depressive disorders
8. Erectile dysfunction
10. Foot ulcers
11. Hand dystonia
12. Irritable Bowel Syndrome
13. Mechanical ventilation
14. Post traumatic stress disorder
15. Repetitive strain Injury
18. Urinary incontinence in Children
Not empirically supported (first level)
1. Eating disorders
2. Multiple Scleroris
3. Spinal Cord Injury
4. Stroke (Neurocardiogenic)
5. Immune function
7. Vocal cord dysfunctions8. ...
Based: "Evidenced-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback". Carolyn Yucha Ph.D.; Doil Montgomery, Ph. D. American Association of applied psychophysiology & biofeedback (AAPB; www.aapb.org).Explanation of Efficacy Levels
The above overview of applications has been developed by the Task Force of the Association for Applied Psyschophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) and the Society for Neuronal Regulation, based on guidelinses for the evalutation of clinical efficacy of psychophysiological interventions (Moss, Gunkelman, 2002):
Level 1: Not empirically supported
Supported only by anecdotal reports and/or case studies in nonpeer-reviewed venues. Not empirically supported.
Level 2: Possibly efficacious
At least one study of sufficient statistical power with well-identified outcome measures but lacking randomized assignment to a control condition internal to the study.
Level 3: Probably efficacious
Multiple observational studies, clinical studies, wait-list controlled studies, and within –subject and intrasubject replication studies that demonstrate efficacy.
Level 4: Efficacious
a. in a comparison with a no-treatment control group, alternative treatment group, or sham (placebo) control utilizing randomized assignment, the investigational treatment is shown to be statistically significantly superior to the control condition or the investigational treatment is equivalent to a treatment of established efficacy I a study with sufficient power to detect moderate differences, and
b. the studies have been conducted with a population treated for a specific problem, for whom inclusion criteria are delineated in a reliable, operationally defined manner, and
c. the study used valid and clearly specified outcome measures related to the problem being treated, and
d. the data are subjected to appropriate data analysis, and
e. the diagnostic and treatment variables and procedures are clearly defined in a manner that permits replication of the study by independent researchers, and
f. the superiority or equivalence of the investigational treatment has been shown in at least two independent research settings
Level 5: Efficacious and specific
Evidence for level 5 efficacy meets all of the criteria for level 4. In addition, the investigational treatment has been shown to statistically superior to credible sham therapy, pill, or alternative bona fide treatments in at least two independent research settings.
Please note that a lower efficacy rating does not necessarily indicate an application is not helpful. In some cases a lower rating has been applied chiefly, because the relevant research has not yet been conducted. In other cases, a lower rating means the application benefits some subjects and not others because of wide intersubject variability. People are not all uniform. On a group comparison basis these selective successes may not be statistically significant. If a prospective client cannot tolerate the available medication therapies in traditional medicine, or if the individual is averse to staying with a medication, then "possibly efficacious therapies" may be reasonable alternatives.