A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effect of Neurofeedback on Fatigue and Cognition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors continue to experience ongoing symptoms, such as fatigue and cognitive impairment, which are poorly managed and have few effective, evidence-based treatment options. Neurofeedback is a noninvasive, drug-free form of brain training that may alleviate long-term symptoms reported by cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to describe the effectiveness and safety of neurofeedback for managing fatigue and cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A comprehensive search of 5 databases was conducted: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PsycInfo, and Embase. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, cohort, case control studies, and descriptive studies were included in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-seven relevant studies were included in the critical appraisals. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate based on the JBI critical appraisal checklists. Seventeen studies were deemed of sufficient quality to be included in the review: 10 experimental studies and 7 descriptive studies. Of these, only 2 were rated as high-quality studies and the remaining were rated as moderate quality. All 17 included studies reported positive results for at least one fatigue or cognitive outcome in a variety of populations, including 1 study with breast cancer survivors. Neurofeedback interventions were well tolerated with only 3 studies reporting any side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite issues with methodological quality, the overall positive findings and few reported side effects suggest neurofeedback could be helpful in alleviating fatigue and cognitive impairment. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that neurofeedback is an effective therapy for management of these symptoms in cancer survivors, however, these promising results support the need for further research with this patient population. More information about which neurofeedback technologies, approaches, and protocols could be successfully used with cancer survivors and with minimal side effects is needed. This research will have significance to nurses and physicians in oncology and primary care settings who provide follow-up care and counseling to cancer survivors experiencing debilitating symptoms in order to provide information and education related to evidence-based therapy options.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,064 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».