Cited by 143Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Efficacy of biofeedback in chronic back pain: a meta-analysis

Sielski, Robert, Rief, Winfried, Glombiewski, Julia Anna·2017·International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Purpose The aims of the present analysis were to investigate the short- and long-term efficacy and treatment moderators of biofeedback as a psychological treatment option for chronic back pain. Method A literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library identified 21 eligible studies including 23 treatment conditions and 1062 patients. Results Meta-analytic integration resulted in a significant small-to-medium effect size for pain intensity reduction (Hedges' g = 0.60; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.44, 0.76) that proved to be stable with a significant small-to-large effect size (Hedges' g = 0.62; 95 % CI 0.40, 0.84) over an average follow-up phase of 8 months. Biofeedback also proved to be effective in reducing depression (Hedges' g = 0.40; 95 % CI 0.27, 0.52), disability (Hedges' g = 0.49; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.74), reduction of muscle tension (EMG; Hedges' g = 0.44; 95 % CI 0.22, 0.65), and improving cognitive coping (Hedges' g = 0.41; 95 % CI 0.26, 0.57). These effects remained comparatively stable at follow-up and for controlled studies only. Moderator analyses revealed longer biofeedback treatments to be more effective for reducing disability and a greater proportion of biofeedback in the treatment to be more effective for reducing depression. Publication bias analyses demonstrated the consistency of these effects. Conclusion It is concluded that biofeedback treatment can lead to improvements on various pain-related outcomes in the short and long terms, both…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12529-016-9572-9

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For BT, the review's findings differ from other reviews; for example, a recent non-Cochrane review of biofeedback in chronic back pain included 21 studies (none included in this review), did not exclude non-randomised or non-inferiority studies, calculated effects of treatment, had no inclusion criteria based on size of trial or credibility of therapy content (Sielski 2017), and reported very阳性?

    “For BT, our findings diFer from other reviews. For example, a recent non-Cochrane review of biofeedback in chronic back pain included 21 studies (none included in this review); the authors did not exclude non-randomised or non-inferiority studies; they calculated eFects of treatment; and they had no inclusion criteria based on size of trial or the credibility of the therapy content (Sielski 2017).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sielski, R., Rief, W., & Glombiewski, J. A.
Affiliations
Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Sielski, Robert
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2016-06-15
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
25-41
ISSN
  • 1070-5503 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7558
OpenAlex
W2430553295
Cited by
143
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
biofeedback, chronic back pain, pain intensity, depression, disability, muscle tension, electromyography, coping, psychological intervention, treatment moderators, adjunctive intervention
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Biofeedback, Psychology, Depression, Humans, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review