NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Neurofeedback Gains Popularity and Lab Attention

Rating

4 Star

Neurofeedback Gains Popularity and Lab Attention

Our Review Summary

This is a story about a purported surge in the popularity of neurofeedback to treat a host of neurological ills, despite a chronic lack of large, well-controlled trials to provide reliable evidence about benefits and harms. The existence of a single, small trial sponsored by the NIH (involving a mere 36 children with ADHD) hardly demonstrates that the treatment is "gaining attention from mainstream researchers." The story could have done a better job of highlighting that support for this treatment comes primarily from those with a financial interest in its popularity.

This story did provide information suggesting that neurofeedback is not an effective treatment.  It erred in spending too much time suggesting that it might be of benefit when there is a complete absence of data to support such claims. While the headline of this story is slanted, on the plus side, it includes comments from many experts with a variety of perspectives.

 

Why This Matters

 This story matters because it lends credence to a treatment modality in the absence of documentation.  

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

 The story provided cost estimates for a couple of neurofeedback treatment regimens.  It also indicated euphemistically that it is not paid for by insurance companies.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Although the story points out that there has not been enough study of neurofeedback to know whether claims of benefits are justified, it highlights an anecdote of a family who believes the treatment helped their child. Without any countervailing examples, this sort of personal story overwhelms the dry statements of doubt, leaving an unbalanced impression. In considering this criterion, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the story is that it jumps from one condition to the other. Is the treatment good for autism, ADHD and other attention issues, cognition in old age? It’s a red flag when proponents of a treatment claim, in essence, that it’s good for whatever ails you.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

We will give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion because it did at least mentions that there are potential harms, but the story would have been better if it had given more detail about the type and frequency of harms. It should have also clearly noted that risks exist even when a treatment is supervised by a skilled practitioner.
One of the potential harms raised is this uNPRoven treatment may be favored over proven options like behavioral therapy and medication.  The story mentioned readily available neurofeedback packages while at the same time had stern warning from a society spokesperson that people can have seizures or anxiety attacks if they use equipment that they get from ebay and use without supervision. No information about how commonly problems such as these occur.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

In trying to give readers an overview of the available evidence on neurofeedback, the story fails to give readers enough information to judge the quality of the research. Most of the references to studies fail to note whether they were randomized controlled trials or something less rigorous. Although the story includes sharp comments from experts who note the paucity of evidence on neurofeedback treatments for serious conditions, it blunders by allowing a researcher to claim prematurely that participants in his trial are showing improvement, even though the results have yet to be released or reviewed by others. It also seems odd that the story portrays the National Institute of Mental Health as a "former skeptic" of neurofeedback, simply because the institute is sponsoring a trial. Studying something is not the same as supporting it, after all, isn’t putting something to the test exactly what a skeptic does?

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

 The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

 The story included quotes from advocates as well as skeptics about benefit to be obtained through neurofeedback treatment.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Although the story includes one comment refering to proven treatments, readers are short-changed by the lack of detail or any discussion of the weight of evidence backing alternatives as comapred to the vague and scarcely studied claims of benefit from neurofeedback.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

 The story mentioned that there are 7,500 mental health professionals that offer neurofeedback services.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

 The story seemed to provide a nice history of neurofeedback devices from the 1960’s.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to be based on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments (1)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Sajeela Ramsey

December 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm

I hope you will take a look at a very candid insider-view of the Neurofeedback Industry per a BLOG called http://neurofeedbackbackbiting.wordpress.com/, covering topics such as: Toxic Trends in the Neurofeedback Industry, The Dark Side of Neurofeedback, Neurofeedback and Junk Science, The Use and Implementation of Neurofeedback In The Public Domain, Creating Community in a Business Network: User Representation of Vendors and Platforms and Customers.

The article you have reviewed appearing in NY TIMES By KATHERINE ELLISON
Published: October 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/health/05neurofeedback.html?_r=1 is frankly more of an industry press release/mouth piece then it is a critically factual article. Ellison strikes me as serving the interests of the Neurofeedback Power Elite, and her similar article in the Washington Post as well as the one you have reviewed both tout a tinted official POLITICAL WILL of Industry Governance Organizations that hold anti-trade agendas, that behave very unethically, and that have no proper checks and balances.

Reply