Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<p><strong>Review Question:</strong> We reviewed the evidence for the eFect of biofeedback therapy on the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).</p> <p><strong>Background:</strong> IBS is a common disorder that includes both abdominal pain and changes in stool frequency or consistency. Biofeedback is a therapy in which participants use technology to track a process that is not normally under conscious control (e.g. heart rate, tension of the anal sphincter) in orderto see how relaxed states of mind aFectthese measures. Researchers have proposed that achieving more relaxed states through the tool of biofeedback may help to improve the symptoms of IBS.</p> <p><strong>Study Characteristics:</strong> We searched for studies that compared biofeedback to either no treatment, sham treatment, or to other active treatments for IBS. We reviewed eighttrials thatincluded 300 total participants and assessed the eFect of biofeedback on IBS. Each ofthese studies only included adults, and was carried outin an outpatient setting. The studies ranged from eight weeks to six months in length. The types of biofeedback devices varied, and included heart rate variability, measures of skin temperature or electrical resistance, and the tension of the muscles of the anus.</p> <p><strong>Study Funding Sources:</strong> None of the included trials disclosed funding sources.</p> <p><strong>Key Results:</strong> Our primary clinical outcomes were global clinical improvement and quality of life. Regarding overall improvement, three trials compared biofeedback to no treatment and found that biofeedback as part of a relaxation training program led to better symptom control than no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). Two of these trials also compared biofeedback to an attention control and found minimal symptom improvement, but the eFects of chance could not be ruled out because the evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial found a greater symptom benefit with heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy (low-certainty evidence). Of two trials comparing biofeedback to counseling, any apparent eFect was minimal and the eFect of chance could not be ruled out (very low-certainty evidence). When rectosigmoidal biofeedback was compared to relaxation control, the eFect favored the relaxation control. The addition of biofeedback to standard medical therapy was superior to medical therapy alone and to medical therapy plus sham biofeedback (low-certainty evidence for both findings).</p> <p><strong>Quality of Life:</strong> A single trial looked specifically at overall quality of life. Quality of life improved both for those in the biofeedback group and those in the cognitive therapy group, but there was no overall diFerence between groups.</p> <p><strong>Adverse Events:</strong> Only one trial explicitly reported on adverse events. It reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback group or the cognitive therapy group.</p> <p><strong>Certainty of the Evidence: We used the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each of these findings. These ranged from low to very low. The evidence is current up to July 2019.</strong></p><strong> <p><strong>Authors' Conclusions:</strong> We conclude that the existing data on biofeedback for IBS are limited and leave us uncertain about its value in IBS symptom management. The studies currently available all have design limitations that make the results difficult to apply to clinical settings. We do, however, recommend further study in this area, as biofeedback could represent a unique approach for a difficult to manage condition.</p></strong>
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,039 | 0,002 |
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 découle