4.7 Review

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 125, Issue -, Pages 33-56

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.015

Keywords

Neurofeedback; Biofeedback; Real-time fMRI; Electroencephalography; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Major depressive disorder; Self-regulation; Neuroimaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neurofeedback training shows potential as an additional treatment option for MDD patients not reaching remission from standard care. Most studies indicate symptom improvement in MDD patients compared to control groups. Recommendations are provided for improving experimental designs and reporting standards in neurofeedback training.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Neurofeedback training has been suggested as a potential additional treatment option for MDD patients not reaching remission from standard care (i.e., psychopharmacology and psychotherapy). Here we systematically reviewed neurofeedback studies employing electroencephalography, or functional magnetic resonance-based protocols in depressive patients. Of 585 initially screened studies, 24 were included in our final sample (N = 480 patients in experimental and N = 194 in the control groups completing the primary endpoint). We evaluated the clinical efficacy across studies and attempted to group studies according to the control condition categories currently used in the field that affect clinical outcomes in group comparisons. In most studies, MDD patients showed symptom improvement superior to the control group(s). However, most articles did not comply with the most stringent study quality and reporting practices. We conclude with recommendations on best practices for experimental designs and reporting standards for neurofeedback training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available