Birocco, N., Guillame, C., Storto, S., Ritorto, G., Catino, C., Gir, N., . . . Ciuffreda, L. (2012). The effects of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in patients attending a day oncology and infusion services unit. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, 29, 290–294.

To examine the effects of Reiki on pain, anxiety, and global wellness among patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy

Reiki sessions were offered to patients in a day oncology and infusion services unit that provided chemotherapy. Patients sat in a chair or lay on a bed during Reiki sessions. Each session lasted approximately 30 minutes. Each patient received a maximum of four Reiki sessions. Prior to each session, Reiki practitioners assessed levels of anxiety and pain according to a numeric scale. After each session, levels of pain and anxiety were recorded on a visual analog scale. The study was done over three years.

• The study reported on a sample of 118 patients, but only 22 completed all sessions.
• Mean patient age was 55 years, with a range of 33–77 years.
• The sample was 57% male and 43% female.
• Patients had various types of cancer, and all were receiving chemotherapy.

• Single site
• Outpatient setting
• Italy

Patients were receiving active antitumor treatment.

A prospective pre/post-test design was used.

• Numeric rating scale
• Visual analog scale (VAS)

Only 48% of patients had more than one Reiki session, and only 22 patients (17%) completed four sessions and were included in statistical analysis. From session 1 to session 4, mean anxiety scores post-Reiki session declined, but scores immediately after each time point were higher than those reported immediately prior to the session.

Findings of this study do not support the effectiveness of Reiki. The study included numerous limitations in study design and methods.

• The study had a small sample size, with fewer than 30 participants.
• The study had risk of bias due to no control group, no blinding, and no random assignment.
• Measurement validity/reliability was questionable.
• The intervention was expensive, impractical, or presented training needs.
• The study reported that pre-session measures, on a numeric scale, were collected by Reiki providers and that post-session measures, per a VAS, were collected by the practitioner. These are two different scales that cannot be directly compared. The study does not make clear what the actual data scale was or the size of the VAS, for interpretation of data.
• Scoring was done by the Reiki practitioners, which could introduce bias. Reiki practitioners required two years of training, one year of additional workshops, and one year of in-hospital practice with tutors.

 This study does not support the effectiveness of Reiki. The study and methods were not well designed or reported.