2015
DOI: 10.1177/1534735415572886
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effect of Neurofeedback on Fatigue and Cognition

Abstract: 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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
63
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
2
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies scoring between 0 and 3, and those scoring between 4 and 6 were considered to be of low and moderate quality, respectively. If a study scored a 7 or higher, it was considered a high quality study ( Luctkar-Flude & Groll, 2015 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies scoring between 0 and 3, and those scoring between 4 and 6 were considered to be of low and moderate quality, respectively. If a study scored a 7 or higher, it was considered a high quality study ( Luctkar-Flude & Groll, 2015 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies were evaluated by 2 authors (WWL and CR) for methodological quality based on Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Center Evaluation Manual (2008). [ 16 ]…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study was excluded due to poor methodological quality. A score of 4-6 on the JBI critical appraisal checklist indicated moderate quality and a score of 7 and above indicated high quality, as used previously by Luctkar-Flude and Groll (2015). Due to the paucity of research in this area, a cut-off score of 4 was established for each of the JBI checklists in this study.…”
Section: Quality Appraisal Levels Of Evidence and Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 98%