Jain, S., & Mills, P. J. (2010). Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 1–16.

To determine whether biofield therapies affect positive health outcomes and reduce disease symptoms.

Databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, PyscINFO, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED).

Search keywords were spiritual healing, subtle energy, energy healing, biofield healing, external qi therapy, emitted chi, emitted qi, qi therapy, Johrei, pranic healing, polarity therapy, Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch. Investigators also manually searched the reference sections of studies and review papers.

Studies were included if they

• Were published in a peer-reviewed journal in the English language
• Used a proximally practiced (that is, practiced with the practitioner and client in the same room) biofield-based modality and included quantitative endpoints
• Were randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with a within-subject design.

Studies were excluded if they related to distant healing or intercessory prayer; integrated modalities that were not biofield-based modalities with biofield-based modalities in such a way that the interventions could not be separated; were animal, plant, and/or in vitro studies; were clinical studies with group assignment but without randomization; were purely descriptive studies; or were unpublished dissertations.
 

• The number of references retrieved was 88.
• Investigators evaluated studies by means of an evaluation quorum that used a checklist of guidelines.
• Ten studies examined the outcomes associated with the use of biofield therapies for patients with cancer.
   

• The number of studies analyzed was 66.  
• The authors did not report the total sample size or the sample size range across studies.
• The sample included patients with pain; hospitalized and postoperative patients; and patients with dementia, cardiovascular issues, and cancer.
   

Patients were undergoing the active treatment phase of care.

The authors presented results according to type of patient and levels of evidence.

• Pain:  The analysis revealed Level I evidence to support biofield therapies as a means of reducing the intensity of pain; Level 4 evidence of affecting comprehensive pain assessment; and Level 4 evidence on affecting anxiety and depression. The analysis also revealed that biofield therapies could have positive effects on health-related quality of life.
• Cancer:  The analysis revealed Level 2 evidence to support biofield therapies as a means of reducing acute pain in patients with cancer; Level 4 of reducing chronic pain; Level 4 of affecting fatigue; Level 4 of affecting quality of life; and Level 4 of affecting physiological measures of relaxation response.
• Hospitalized and Postoperative Patients:  The analysis revealed Level 2 evidence to support biofield therapies as a means of reducing anxiety and Level 2 of reducing pain. The evidence that the analysis revealed about the effect of biofield therapies on depression and functional or autonomic outcomes was insufficient to allow conclusions.
• Dementia:  The analysis revealed Level 2 evidence to support biofield therapies as a means of reducing negative behavioral symptoms associated with dementia.
• Patients with Cardiovascular Issues:  The analysis revealed Level 4 evidence to support biofield therapies as a means of reducing anxiety and Level 4 of reducing diastolic blood pressure. Study quality and duration of each treatment session were not associated with the number of positive outcomes; however, the total number of treatment sessions was positively associated with the number of positive psychological outcomes.

Proximally practiced biofield therapies are promising complementary interventions as means of reducing pain intensity in multiple populations, reducing anxiety in hospitalized populations, and reducing agitated behaviors in patients with dementia. The long-term effects of the therapies on fatigue and autonomic nervous system activity are unclear.

• The review was systematic but not a meta-analysis.
• The authors relied on p-values versus effect size.
• Nonquantitative studies were not included.

Future research should compare biofield therapies with empirically supported treatments for specific conditions.