| Title |
Thermal Biofeedback for Primary Raynaud’s Phenomenon: A Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, October 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10484-006-9018-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Katsamanis Karavidas, Pei-Shan Tsai, Carolyn Yucha, Angele McGrady, Paul M. Lehrer |
| Abstract |
The clinical presentation of primary Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) derives from various pathogenic triggers. The use of thermal biofeedback (TBF) may be of benefit in reducing the severity and frequency of attacks. This article summarizes the relevant research regarding the pathophysiology of primary RP and mechanism of TBF for RP. Systematic reviews of the efficacy of TBF for RP and treatment guidelines for clinicians are provided. The panel concludes that the level of evidence for TBF efficacy is categorized as Level IV: efficacious. The rationale, based on three randomized controlled trials conducted in independent laboratories, demonstrated "superiority or equivalence" of treatments that include TBF. However, randomly controlled trials (RCT) with positive clinical outcomes tended to be small. A large RCT with negative results did not effectively teach handwarming skills. Procedures for reviewing and rating of the levels of evidence of efficacy of studies was based on the Template for Developing Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Psychophysiological Interventions developed by the joint task force of the AAPB and the Society for Neuronal Regulation (SNR). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,866,480
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#161
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,187
of 68,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 68,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.