SynthesisBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical challenges in EEG neurofeedback: a systematic review of gaps, risks, and responsibilities.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review examines the ethical landscape of electroencephalographic neurofeedback (EEG-NFB). In accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search of six databases was conducted between December 2024 and February 2025, yielding 23 studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria. A qualitative thematic synthesis identified seven recurring ethical challenges: (1) concerns regarding informed consent and autonomy, shaped by uncertainty surrounding efficacy and the influence of placebo and contextual effects; (2) issues related to non-maleficence and the psychological risks associated with participation; (3) challenges pertaining to justice and equitable access to EEG-NFB interventions; (4) tensions between scientific validity and the ethical use of placebo-controlled designs; (5) questions surrounding data privacy and the governance of brain-derived data; (6) ethical vulnerabilities affecting specific populations; and (7) neuroethical concerns arising from enhancement-oriented applications. Taken together, the findings indicate that ethical analysis has not consistently kept pace with the technological expansion and commercial dissemination of EEG-NFB. Persistent limitations were identified in data governance practices, practitioner training, and regulatory oversight. The present review therefore underscores the need for standardised ethical frameworks, sustained interdisciplinary collaboration, and further empirically grounded research to support the responsible, transparent, and equitable integration of EEG-NFB into both research and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.