Article citationsMore>>

Chou, R., Deyo, R., Friedly, J., Skelly, A., Hashimoto, R., Weimer, M., Fu, R., Dana, T., Kraegel, P., Griffin, J., Grusing, S. and Brodt, E.D. (2017) Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine, 166, 493-505.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2459

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Galvanic Skin Response—Extinction Biofeedback Training for Psychogenic Abdominal Pain: A Validation Protocol

  AUTHORS: Maddalena Castelletti, Enrico Berné, Erasmo Dionigio Carlo Castagnoli, Alberto Montagna, Giorgio Tonon

  KEYWORDS: Chronic Abdominal and Pelvic Psychogenic Pain (PAP), Biofeedback Training, Pain Management, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR)

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Biosciences and Medicines, Vol.12 No.5, May 22, 2024

  ABSTRACT: Abdominal and pelvic pain of psychogenic origin is a widespread, disabling, difficult to identify, and often inadequately treated medical condition. This condition is often associated with poor quality of life due to high pain interference with daily activities. Cognitive behavioral psychological therapy and neuromodulation with biofeedback are validated therapies for the treatment of this condition. Aim of the present research work is the validation of a therapeutic protocol that involves the use of both techniques in combination. 20 patients diagnosed with psychogenic abdominal pain, of both sexes, aged between 18 and 60 years who had not benefited from pharmacological therapies were enrolled. 10 patients were randomly assigned to the control group (psychological treatment only), another 10 patients were assigned to the study group (neuromodulation with biofeedback-Galvanic skin response-extinction in combination with psychological therapy). For both groups, the pain score, interference of pain with daily living activities, pain relief, and the share of anxiety associated with the pain condition were evaluated (pre- and post-treatment). The patients who underwent the combined treatment achieved statistically significant better scores than patients in the control group, respectively −4.9 ± 0.9 vs −1.0 ± 0.4 for Pain; −5.1 ± 1.1 vs −0.9 ± 0.3 for Interference with life; −7.2 ± 3.7 vs −2.2 ± 2.1 for HAMA; 4.6 ± 1.2 vs 1.1 ± 0.6 for Relief.