Biofeedback control of migraine headaches: A comparison of two approaches

Gauthier, Janel; Lacroix, Renée; Côté, Alain; Doyon, Julien; Drolet, Marie‐Claude

doi:10.1007/bf01000750

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 In fact, patients who undergo biofeedback are often urged to apply their training at the earliest sign of a headache onset. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the belief in question is consistent with some clinical observations made by Stroebel & Glueck, 11 it should be pointed out that it has never been submitted to any kind of empirical testing. Consequently, a question arises as to whether or not biofeedback researchers and clinicians should go on putting so much emphasis on the early application of biofeedback strategies to control migraine headaches.…”

supporting

confidence: 54%

The Differential Effects of Biofeedback in the Treatment of Classical and Common Migraine

Gauthier

Fradet²,

Roberge

1988

Headache

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSIS The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that patients whose headaches are usuallypreceded by prodromes would derive more benefits from biofeedback than those who do not have anywarnings. Accordingly, 39 female patients were assigned to either of two conditions: classical migraine(n=17) or common migraine (n=22) depending on the characteristics of their headaches. The classicalmigraine condition included only patients whose headaches were usually or always associated with visualprodromes while the common migraine condition included patients whose headache were never or rarelyassociated with any kind of prodromes. All patients completed 5 weeks of daily self‐monitoring ofheadache activity and medication intake before and after treatment, and at 6‐month follow‐up. Resultsshowed that patients in the classical migraine condition improved significantly more than those in thecommon migraine group. Various explanations for the differential effects of biofeedback in the treatment ofclassical and common migraine are discussed and suggestions for further research are made.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 54%

The Differential Effects of Biofeedback in the Treatment of Classical and Common Migraine

Gauthier

Fradet²,

Roberge

1988

Headache

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inclusion and the exclusion criteria(s) used originally to determine whether or not those patients were suffering from migraine headaches are described elsewhere. [10][11][12][13][14] Treatment. The biofeedback treatment consisted of either finger temperature or temporal blood volume pulse (BVP) biofeedback, two procedures that have been shown to be equally effective in the treatment of migraine headaches.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Effects of Biofeedback on Migraine Headache: A Prospective Follow‐Up Study

Gauthier

Carrier

1991

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was two-fold: to assess the long-term effects of biofeedback on migraine, and to determine the extent to which additional treatment after biofeedback treatment is completed can affect follow-up results. Ninety-six women whose migraine had been treated through biofeedback either 2-3 years (shorter follow-up) or 6-7 years (longer follow-up) earlier were divided into four groups according to how long ago they had received their biofeedback treatment and whether or not they had received any additional treatment (whatever the nature) since the posttreatment assessment: shorter follow-up without additional treatment (n = 24), shorter follow-up with additional treatment (n = 22), longer follow-up without additional treatment (n = 24), and longer follow-up with additional treatment (n = 26). Subjects were asked to keep a headache diary for five weeks, as they had done during earlier assessments. Overall, results showed that migraine activity was significantly less at follow-up than at pretreatment. However, whether the observed long-term benefits could be attributed to biofeedback was unclear because medication was found to be as much in use at follow-up as at pretreatment. Results also indicated that 51% of the subjects did seek additional treatment between posttreatment and follow-up. Contrary to expectations, however, additional treatment was not associated with better therapeutic benefits at follow-up. The research and the clinical implications of those findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Quite some time ago, Anderson et al [12] found six sessions of hypnotherapy to be superior to a prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine (20 mg/d for 1 year), a therapy that would not be used today. Gauthier et al [13] compared self-hypnosis with a combination of TBF and relaxation and did not find any significant difference. In contrast to acupuncture, there is no such thing as sham hypnosis, which makes it almost impossible to control for nonspecific effects of this therapy.…”

Section: Hypnosismentioning

confidence: 97%

Nonpharmacologic treatment of migraine

Sándor¹,

Áfra²

2005

Current Science Inc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonpharmacologic treatment of migraine is often used by patients and can provide interesting options for physicians. Knowledge about the evidence and its absence is important. Avoidance of trigger factors can help, if individualized. Behavioral approaches, such as relaxation techniques, biofeedback, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, require far more specialist time or technical devices, but are supported by some evidence, which is mostly old. The same is true for hypnosis. A new approach in migraine prevention is aerobic exercise, which is associated with positive side effects. Whether it will take a strong role, similar to the treatment of depression, remains to be seen. There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of spinal manipulation. Hyperbaric oxygen may be an effective, but rarely practical prophylactic measure. The evidence pertaining to the efficacy of acupuncture is controversial because of methodologic difficulties, but an ongoing large German study may provide valuable evidence in the near future. Nutritional supplements acting on mitochondrial metabolism, such as magnesium, riboflavin, and coenzyme Q10, were shown to be effective in small, randomized, controlled trials. More studies on the different therapeutic interventions are needed, using modern diagnostic standards and state-of-the-art trial methodology.

show abstract

Biofeedback control of migraine headaches: A comparison of two approaches

Cited by 26 publications

References 21 publications

The Differential Effects of Biofeedback in the Treatment of Classical and Common Migraine

The Differential Effects of Biofeedback in the Treatment of Classical and Common Migraine

Long‐Term Effects of Biofeedback on Migraine Headache: A Prospective Follow‐Up Study

Nonpharmacologic treatment of migraine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About