Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33759705›Full record

ReviewAJOB neuroscience

Ethical and Legal Considerations of Alternative Neurotherapies.

Ashwini Nagappan, Louiza Kalokairinou, Anna Wexler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ashwini NagappanUniversity of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-5518-102X
Louiza KalokairinouUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Anna WexlerUniversity of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-6723-9038

Funding

Do-it-Yourself and Direct-to-Consumer Medicine and Science: Assessing the Public Health Issues and Regulatory GapsDP5OD026420 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WEXLER, ANNA · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
NIH HHS DP5 OD026420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurotherapies for diagnostics and treatment-such as electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback, single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) imaging for neuropsychiatric evaluation, and off-label/experimental uses of brain stimulation-are continuously being offered to the public outside mainstream healthcare settings. Because these neurotherapies share many key features of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques-and meet the definition of CAM as set out in Kaptchuk and Eisenberg-here we refer to them as "alternative neurotherapies." By explicitly linking these alternative neurotherapy practices under a common conceptual framework, this paper draws attention to, and critically considers, the cross-cutting ethical and legal issues related to the provision of these services. The first section of this paper provides an updated empirical overview of uses of SPECT neuropsychiatric evaluations, EEG neurofeedback, and experimental/off-label forms of brain stimulation. Next, drawing on CAM bioethics scholarship, we highlight the pertinent ethical issues in the alternative neurotherapy context, including the truthful representation of evidence base, marketing to vulnerable populations, potential harms, provider competency, and conflicts of interest. Finally, we consider the principal legal issues at stake for the provision of alternative neurotherapies in the U.S., namely those related to licensing and scope-of-practice considerations. We conclude with recommendations for future research in this domain.

Indexed as

BioethicsNeurofeedbackDelivery of Health CareElectroencephalographyHumansMoralsAlternative medicinebrain stimulationneurofeedbackneuroimagingneurotherapies

Identifiers

PMID33759705
PMCPMC8460707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.