Efficacy of EMG- and EEG-biofeedback in fibromyalgia syndrome: A meta-analysis and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

61Citations
Citations of this article
240Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives. Biofeedback (BFB) is an established intervention in the rehabilitation of headache and other pain disorders. Little is known about this treatment option for fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). The aim of the present review is to integrate and critically evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy of biofeedback for FMS. Methods. We conducted a literature search using Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov (National Institute of Health), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and manual searches. The effect size estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Results. The literature search produced 123 unique citations. One hundred sixteen records were excluded. The meta-analysis included seven studies (321 patients) on EEG-Biofeedback and EMG-Biofeedback. In comparison to control groups, biofeedback (BFB) significantly reduced pain intensity with a large effect size (g = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.22-1.36). Subgroup analyses revealed that only EMG-BFB and not EEG-BFB significantly reduced pain intensity in comparison to control groups (g = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.11-1.62). BFB did not reduce sleep problems, depression, fatigue, or health-related quality of life in comparison to a control group. Discussion. The interpretation of the results is limited because of a lack of studies on the long-term effects of EMG-BFB in FMS. Further research should focus on the long-term efficacy of BFB in fibromyalgia and on the identification of predictors of treatment response. © 2013 Julia Anna Glombiewski et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Glombiewski, J. A., Bernardy, K., & Häuser, W. (2013). Efficacy of EMG- and EEG-biofeedback in fibromyalgia syndrome: A meta-analysis and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/962741

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free