No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. Findings for the effectiveness of neurofeedback in autism spectrum disorder are found to be inconsistent. Therefore, this review comprehensively and systematically reviewed literature on the effectiveness of neurofeedback for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders in children. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was carried out in October 2017 to find relevant papers. We selected full journal articles that reported neurofeedback as a treatment for autism in children (0–17 years). The search yielded 587 articles and we included 20 references with a total of 443 participants. Ninety-four percent of nonrandomized controlled and experimental trials concerning neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorders found positive results. The evidence for effectiveness of neurofeedback therapy was even more robust when only randomized controlled studies were considered. Although there are only a few randomized controlled studies, results support effectiveness of neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorder, including long-term positive effects. In the future, optimal treatment protocols have to be developed to guide clinicians in their neurofeedback treatment. In conclusion, neurofeedback seems to be an alternative treatment for autism spectrum disorders, with space for improvement.

IntroductionThere is a lot of speculation about why and how patients decide to use invasive treatment in an advanced stage of cancer, but the body of research is limited. The present longitudinal qualitative and quantitative study reflects real-life practice of pixantrone use and aims to collect data on patients’ considerations for, expectations of and experiences with pixantrone and trajectories in their quality-of-life (QoL) values in a Dutch clinical setting. Hence, two questions emerge. Why do patients choose for this treatment, while the treatment success rate is limited and curation cannot be achieved? And second, once chosen, what conditions would patients like to satisfy and how do they experience the treatment?Methods and analysisThis is a non-interventional longitudinal and multicentre study. Patients are eligible if they are >18 years, have never been treated with pixantrone before, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, have a relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and have been treated with at least two prior regimens. The decision to treat patients with pixantrone has been taken by the treating physician before patients are asked to participate in the study. If patients refuse study participation after being informed by the investigator, reasons for refusal (if given) will be recorded. Participants will receive at least three interviews accompanied by three QOL questionnaires. Based on the required sample size, we aim to include 20 patients over a period of 2 years.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences. The study is non-interventional and falls therefore not under Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (In Dutch: Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen; WMO). Hence, this study is approved to be carried out in the Erasmus MC. Each other participating centre will receive this approval and will separately undergo the ethical approval to be able to participate. In addition to the ethical approval, the participating centres need to obtain written informed consent of their patients. Given the non-interventional nature of this study, a study registration was considered but deemed unnecessary. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Tokyo, Venice, Hong Kong and Somerset West amendments). A sequential identification number will be automatically attributed to each patient that has given consent to participate in the study. This number will identify the patient and must be included on all documents. Only the main researcher can link the code to the patient’s identity.

No abstract