Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32604020›Full record

SynthesisNeuroImage. Clinical2020

Predictors of neurofeedback training outcome: A systematic review.

Lydia Anna Weber, Thomas Ethofer, Ann-Christine Ehlis

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Neurofeedback for functional neurological disorders: future directions for research and clinical practice.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lydia Anna WeberDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstr.14, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: Lydia.Weber@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Thomas EthoferDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstr.14, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany; Department for Biomedical Resonance, University Hospital Tuebingen, Otfried-Müller-Str.51, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: Thomas.Ethofer@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Ann-Christine EhlisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstr.14, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany; LEAD Graduate School & Research Network, University of Tuebingen, Walter-Simon-Straße 12, D-72074 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: Ann-Christine.Ehlis@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
University of Tübingen · DESTZ eyetrial · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurofeedback (NF), a training tool aimed at enhancing neural self-regulation, has been suggested as a complementary treatment option for neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite its potential as a neurobiological intervention directly targeting neural alterations underlying clinical symptoms, the efficacy of NF for the treatment of mental disorders has been questioned recently by negative findings obtained in randomized controlled trials (e.g., Cortese et al., 2016). A possible reason for insufficient group effects of NF trainings vs. placebo could be related to the high rate of participants who fail to self-regulate brain activity by NF ("non-learners"). Another reason could be the application of standardized NF protocols not adjusted to individual differences in pathophysiology. Against this background, we have summarized information on factors determining training and treatment success to provide a basis for the development of individualized training protocols and/or clinical indications. The present systematic review included 25 reports investigating predictors for the outcome of NF trainings in healthy individuals as well as patients affected by mental disorders or epilepsy. We selected these studies based on searches in EBSCOhost using combinations of the keywords "neurofeedback" and "predictor/predictors". As "NF training" we defined all NF applications with at least two sessions. The best available evidence exists for neurophysiological baseline parameters. Among them, the target parameters of the respective training seem to be of particular importance. However, particularities of the different experimental designs and outcome criteria restrict the interpretability of some of the information we extracted. Therefore, further research is needed to gain more profound knowledge about predictors of NF outcome.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesNeurofeedbackBrainElectroencephalographyHumansLearningMental DisordersBrain-computer interfaceBrain structureEEGfMRINeuroanatomical parametersNeurofeedbackPredictorsPsychological factorsReview

Identifiers

PMID32604020
PMCPMC7327249
OpenAlexW3031440461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.