Galvanic skin resistance (GSR) biofeedback in tension-type headache Auditory, visual or combined feedback: Which is beneficial? A randomized controlled trial
Galvanic skin resistance (GSR) biofeedback in tension-type headache Auditory, visual or combined feedback: Which is beneficial? A randomized controlled trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/14038196.2012.693947
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Naik, Karkal Ravishankar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bembalgi, Veena;Naik, Karkal Ravishankar
背景：肌电图仪(EMG)生物反馈(BF)治疗紧张型头痛的疗效已被广泛研究，但较少有研究比较研究皮肤电阻力(GSR)BF的疗效。此外，还没有研究报道单独的听觉、视觉和联合的GSR BF在TTH中的作用。目的：研究听觉反馈、视觉反馈和联合反馈对TTH患者GSR BF的疗效。设计：随机对照研究。对象、地点：共招募143名受试者。其中121名受试者(女性76名，男性45名)随机分为4组，分别接受听觉组(n=30)、视觉组(n=30)、混合组(n=30)和对照组(n=31)。干预：每个受试者(对照组除外)在理疗门诊部的隔离房间内接受15次BF治疗，每次30min。对照组只接受医生开出的药物。没有进行任何致盲手术。观察指标：在基线和治疗6个月后记录疼痛变量、止痛药用量和36项简明健康调查(SF-36)生活质量评分。结果：基线和6个月时重复测量的方差分析显示，GSRav组在频率(p=0.10)、持续时间(p=0.001)和强度(p=0.001)方面差异均有统计学意义，而对照组除强度(p=0.001)外，其余差异均无统计学意义。6个月后，除对照组心理评分外，4组SF-36总分、躯体评分、心理评分均无明显改善(P=0.06)。6个月后，各组止痛药使用量均无明显下降。结论：三种治疗方案均能有效治疗TTH，提高TTH患者的生活质量。与单独的听觉或视觉反馈相比，组合的GSR BF似乎有更多的效果。
Background: The effi cacy of electromyograph (EMG) biofeedback (BF) in the treatment of tension-type headaches (TTH) has been extensively studied, but very few studies have been done comparatively to study effi cacy of galvanic skin resistance (GSR) BF. Moreover, no studies have reported the effi cacy of isolated audio, visual and combined GSR BF in TTH. Objectives: The present study aimed at studying the effi cacy of GSR BF using auditory, visual and combined feedback in patients with TTH. Design: Randomized, controlled study. Participants, settings: 143 subjects were recruited. Of these, 121 subjects (76 females and 45 males) were randomly assigned using the lottery method to four groups receiving auditory (n = 30), visual (n = 30), combined GSR BF (n = 30) and control group (n = 31), respectively. Intervention: Each subject (except control group) received 15 sessions of BF for 30 min each in an isolated room in the physiotherapy outpatient department. The control group received only medication prescribed by their physician. No blinding was followed. Outcome measures: Pain variables, consumption of analgesics and 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36) quality-of-life scores were recorded at baseline and 6 months after therapy. Results: Repeated-measures analysis of variance at baseline and 6 months showed signifi cant differences in frequency (p = 0.01), duration (p = 0.001) and intensity (p = 0.001) in the GSRav group with insignifi cant differences in the control group except intensity (p = 0.001). All four groups showed signifi cant improvement in total, physical and mental SF-36 scores after 6 months except mental score in the control group (p = 0.06). An insignifi cant drop in analgesic usage was seen in all groups after 6 months. Conclusion: All three forms of GSR were effective in treatment of TTH and improving the quality of life of TTH patients. Combined GSR BF seems to have slightly more effectiveness compared with isolated auditory or visual feedback.