This map presents an overview of the clinical effectiveness evidence of Bioenergetic Analysis and derived interventions for different health outcomes, i.e., Mental Disorders and Indicators, Well-being and Quality of Life, Organic Diseases and Metabolic and Physiological Indicators.
The study was based on the application of the methodology developed by the International Impact Evaluation (3iE) for mapping evidence and its gaps, which consists of mapping and graphically representing the characteristics and findings of the evidence analyzed from primary clinical studies and systematic reviews, associating the effect of specific interventions in the area with the clinical outcomes analyzed, in addition to linking other information such the quality of the study (level of confidence), the population, and the focus country.
On the map, associations are represented on the Tableau Platform through geometric shapes and different colours representing the effect (positive, potentially positive, inconclusive) and the level of confidence (high, moderate, low, or critically low) of the reported evidence. All geometric shapes lead to the list of study titles with a link to the full text.
- Evidence Map (EN): https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/bireme/viz/analise-bionergetica-en/evidence-map
- Evidence Map (PT) : https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/bireme/viz/analise-bionergetica-pt/evidence-map
Eligible for inclusion in the Evidence Map were the following: studies that presented clinical interventions aimed at delimited clinical outcomes, studies that reported Bioenergetic Analysis interventions (individual and/or group), body psychotherapy studies (individual and/or group) that included references from Bioenergetic Analysis or were based on the field, exercise studies derived from bioenergetic analysis (Trauma Release Exercises (TRE), grounding and movement groups), and device-mediated grounding studies, considering these last ones as derivations of the classical concept of grounding, which is a central element of Bioenergetic Analysis.
Therefore, we considered literature reviews and systematic reviews, controlled clinical trials, uncontrolled clinical trials, cohort studies, prospective and retrospective observational studies, case series, case studies, and experience reports. These studies were available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, and were published in peer-reviewed scientific media.
To assess the quality of studies, two tools were used: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which was applied to studies involving primary data and the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), which was used to evaluate systematic reviews. The MMAT offers a comprehensive method for evaluating the quality of studies that employ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, addressing different aspects of the research, including design, data collection, and analysis. The AMSTAR 2 provides a rigorous framework for the critical assessment of systematic reviews, considering the selection, methodological assessment, and synthesis of the included studies.
All the studies could answer in some way the following research question: how effective is Bioenergetic Analysis for health outcomes? All studies were evaluated, characterized, and categorized by a group of researchers in the field of Bioenergetic Analysis and had the support of experts in the Evidence Map methodology.
Document edited by : CABSIN: Brazilian Academic Consortium of Integrative Health
