This story discusses the state of evidence for neurofeedback for treating depression, ADD, anxiety, and a number of other issues. Readers are introduced to the topic through the experience of the writer, who went for a $250 diagnostic session at the office of a company called Neurocore. Expert sources and a review of the scientific literature ground the story and help balance the anecdotes.
As the title of the story indicates, neurofeedback is an expensive treatment option. People dealing with a range of conditions that have not been amenable to other treatments might be tempted to try neurofeedback despite the cost, impressed by the scientific lingo and the seemingly sound logic used to explain its effects. It is important that the public, some of whom may be desperate for some sort of hope of improvement of a chronic condition, be given a clear-eyed view of how effective the procedure is likely to be.
The story states the cost of a session of neurofeedback at Neurocore. The story would have been stronger if it had clarified whether insurance companies cover this treatment.
There’s no quantification of benefits here, but we feel that was the right call. The story makes it clear that any studies showing benefits are of low quality and would likely overstate the benefits.
The heading of the article highlights the only significant harm that has been associated with the treatment–potential emaciation of clients’ bank accounts.
The poor quality of research on neurofeedback is frankly described in this piece. The story doesn’t mention it, but this state of affairs hasn’t changed much since the 1980s or 1990s when neurofeedback first caught the public’s imagination. A meta-analysis published in June 2016 concluded that 13 randomized clinical trials located fail to support neurofeedback as a treatment of ADD.
The story doesn’t engage in disease mongering.
Conflicts of interest in the main study addressed are acknowledged. The story itself contains a range of sources.
Where this article falls short is in its comparison to alternatives. How do those options compare to neurofeedback, in terms of evidence that they work?
The story states that neurofeedback businesses are growing rapidly. Readers get the sense that offices are not that difficult to locate, although we are not told in so many words.
The implied novelty is that this is a fast-growing business, in spite of the lack of evidence. A little of the decades-long history of the sort of approach would help readers better put article claims into context, though.
Outside experts are interviewed and quoted.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Sandy Thigpen
May 30, 2017 at 6:25 pmI read the article and greatly appreciate your review. I have personally been treated using neurofeedback with great success. I’m hopeful future studies will provide the proper test structure, including acceptable control groups, to accurately reflect the efficacy of this type of therapy. The use of control groups are basic components of any published study. It’s disappointing to read the testing that was done is inconclusive due to a lack of acceptable and standard testing elements.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like