title: An alternative perspective on biofeedback efficacy studies: a reply to Steiner and Dince.
abstract: Clinical applications of biofeedback have proliferated and considerable lore surrounding the application of these techniques has evolved. Many assertions about the effectiveness of biofeedback training are based on findings of the least well-controlled studies, while many of the better controlled studies have failed to show that biofeedback directly mediates target symptoms or is superior to other treatments. Steiner and Dince (1981) suggest that the failure of these controlled studies is primarily attributable to methodological deficiencies. We believe that the question of whether or not there is a specific effect of biofeedback training is still frequently confused with the question of whether or not the treatment package as a whole has therapeutic value. Biofeedback is often therapeutic; however, evidence is often lacking that its effectiveness is due to biofeedback-trained changes in a target physiological process.
mesh_terms: D001341:Autonomic Nervous System / Q000502:physiology; D001676:Biofeedback, Psychology / Q000502:physiology; D002983:Clinical Competence; D006261:Headache / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D010919:Placebos; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards; D012881:Skin Temperature
chemical_list: D010919:Placebos