Biofeedback training in conduction disorder, arrhythmia

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu

Biofeedback restores the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles during straining (94% successful) and evacuate a water-filled balloon (97% successful), and these physiological improvements are strongly

Effect: improvement; 94% biofeedback patients achieved pelvic floor relaxation; 97% could defecate balloon; 94.2% of all patients who improved pelvic floor fu