Table 2.
Summary of findings, by comparison
| Outcome | Number and type of studies (participants) | Absolute effect estimates | Certainty of evidence GRADE a |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEG-based neurofeedback vs. sham neurofeedback | |||
| This comparison was not evaluated in any of the included studies. | |||
| EEG-based neurofeedback vs. other treatment | |||
| PTSD symptoms | 1 RCT (n = 29) | Between-group difference in mean change pre-to-post-treatment: Δ 20.4 in favor of neurofeedback (scale 0–49), p < 0.05 | ⊕⃝⃝⃝ b |
| Medication use | 1 RCT (n = 29) | Number of patients with decreased medication use Decrease: 14/14 vs. 1/13 Between-group difference: χ 2 = 23.26, p < 0.05 |
⊕⃝⃝⃝ b |
| EEG-based neurofeedback vs. no treatment | |||
| Suicidal thoughts | 1 RCT (n = 10) | Between-group difference in mean change pre-to-post-treatment: Δ 1.4 in favor of neurofeedback (scale 1–5), p = 0.002 | ⊕⃝⃝⃝ c |
| PTSD symptoms | 3 RCTs (n = 92) | Standardized mean difference at end of treatment −2.30 (95% CI −4.27 to −0.24), p = 0.03 | ⊕⃝⃝⃝ d |
| Level of functioning | 1 RCT (n = 30) | Wisconsin Card Sorting Test No. of errors Between-group difference in mean change pre-to-post-treatment: Δ 29.4 in favor of neurofeedback, p < 0.001 Tower of London Between-group difference in mean change pre-to-post-treatment: Δ 6.1 in favor of neurofeedback, p < 0.001 |
⊕⃝⃝⃝ e |
| High certainty ⊕⊕⊕⊕ | We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. | ||
| Moderate certainty ⊕⊕⊕⃝ | We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. | ||
| Low certainty ⊕⊕⃝⃝ | Confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. | ||
| Very low certainty ⊕⃝⃝⃝ | We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||
Certainty of evidence.
Downgraded three steps for serious study limitations, indirectness, and serious imprecision (e.g., unclear randomization, lack of blinding, unclear whether data analyses were predefined, different preconditions in control treatment, one small study).
Downgraded three steps for very serious study limitations, indirectness, and serious imprecision (e.g., self-reported outcomes with no blinding, unclear whether data analyses were pre-defined, different preconditions in control treatment, one very small study).
Downgraded three steps for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision (e.g., different preconditions in control treatment, limitations in blinding, questions whether data analyses were predefined, heterogeneity).
Downgraded three steps for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision (e.g., different preconditions in control treatment, unclear randomization, lack of blinding, questions whether data analyses were predefined).