A systematic review of the quality of research on hands-on and distance healing: clinical and laboratory studies
Author: Crawford C 1//Sparber AG 2//Jonas WB 1
Affiliation:
Samueli Institute for Information Biology, Alexandria, Va. [1]//Nursing and Patient Care Services, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. [2]
Conference/Journal: Atern Ther Health Med
Date published: 2003
Other:
Volume ID: 9 , Issue ID: 3 , Pages: 96-104 , Special Notes: Reprint requests: Inno Vision Communications, 169 Saxony Rd, Suite 104,
Encinitas. CA 92024: phone, (760) 633-3910 or (866) 828-2962; tax, (760) 633-3918; e-mail, alternative.therapies@innerdoorway.com. , Word Count: 271
Purpose To systematically review the quality of published experimental clinical and laboratory research involving hands-on and distance healing between 1995 and 2001.
Data Sources Studies were identified through comprehensive literature searches on spiritual healing in MEDLINE, PSYCH LIT, EMBASE, CISCOM, and the Cochrane Library from their inceptions to December 2001.
Study Selection We selected published randomized, controlled trials of spiritual healing (hands-on healing and distance healing) done in clinical and laboratory settings, all of which had been peer reviewed.
Data Extraction Independent quality assessment of internal validity was conducted on all identified studies using the comprehensive Likelihood of Validity Evaluation scale. Clinical and laboratory studies were analyzed separately and then subdivided into hands-on or distance healing interventions.
Results A total of 45 laboratory and 45 clinical studies, published between 1956 and 2001 met the inclusion criteria. Of the clinical studies, 31 (70.5%) reported positive outcomes as did 28 (62%) of the laboratory studies; 4 (9%) of the clinical studies reported negative outcomes as id 15 (33%) of the laboratory studies. The mean percent overall internal validity for clinical studies was 69% (65% for hands-on healing and 75% for distance healing) and for laboratory studies 82% (82% for hands-on healing and 81% for distance healing). Major methodological problems of these studies included adequacy of blinding, dropped data in laboratory studies, reliability of outcome measures, rare use of power estimations and confidence intervals, and lack of independent replications.
Conclusions When laboratory studies were compared to clinical studies in the areas of hands-on and distance healing across the quality criteria for internal validity, distance healing studies scored better than hands-on healing studies, and laboratory studies fared better than clinical studies. Many studies of healing contained major problems that must be addressed in any future research.
BACK
