This randomized clinical trial tested the effects of laying on of hands (LooH) as a complementary therapy to kinesiotherapy, on pain, joint stiffness, and functional capacity of older women with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) compared to a control group.
Participants were assigned into 3 groups:
- LooH with a spiritual component (Group – SPG),
- LooH without a spiritual component (Group – LHG),
- a control group receiving no complementary intervention (Control Group – CG).
Patients were assessed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were joint stiffness and functional capacity (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), and pain (WOMAC and visual analogue scale). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, mobility, and quality of life. Differences between groups were evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach.
A total of 120 women with KOA were randomized (40 participants per group). At 8 weeks, SPG differed significantly from the LHG for WOMAC Functional Status; Anxiety levels; and also from the CG for all outcomes with exception of WOMAC Stiffness. After 16 weeks, SPG differed significantly from the LHG only for WOMAC Functional Status and also from the CG for all outcomes with exception of WOMAC Stiffness and timed up-and-go.
The authors concluded that the results suggest that LooH with a “spiritual component” may promote better long-term functional outcomes than both LooH without a “spiritual component” and a control group without LooH.
This is an interesting study which seems well designed. Its findings are surprising and lack scientific plausibility. Therefore, sceptics will find it hard to accept the results and suspect some hidden bias or confounding to have caused it rather than the laying on of hands. SCAM enthusiasts would then probably claim that such an attitude exemplifies the bias of sceptics.
So, what can be done to find out who is right and who is wrong?
Whenever we are faced with a surprising finding based on a seemingly rigorous trial, it is wise to realise that there is a plethora of possible explanations and that speculations are usually not very helpful. There is always a danger of a clinical trial producing false or misleading findings. This could be due to a plethora of reasons such as error, undetected bias or confounding, fraud, etc.
What we really need is an independent replication – better two.
16 Responses to Laying on of hands improves osteoarthritis pain … at least this is what a new study suggests
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
It would be interesting if future studies differentiated the ‘spiritual content’: Would it make a difference if the layer-on-of-hands provided spiritual content that was Confucian, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian?
Agree – very interesting. I’m a lay person with OA and check all information related to treatments (diet, exercise etc.) with Cochrane Collaboration findings.
But what exactly is Loh? Is just someone literally laying their hand(s) on your knee? Somewhere else on your body? Or a combination? Do they speak or is it done in silence? How is “spiritual” defined? Does the patient have to believe in the efficacy of LOH? Did all the patients in the LOH group have the same “practitioner?
So many questions, such an interesting subject.
LOOH is not well defined. Confusingly, it often does not involve touch.
I wonder is the answer uis more how the ‘therapist’ talked to the patients whilst laying on of hands. Such talk might be enough to account for the results smo it would improve the mood of the patient.
We need to know exactly how SPG and LHG are performed.
I can’t see how this study was blinded. I would also like to see the baseline demographics, eg were believers equally randomised? I am not going to pay to read the full text!
A Practitioner may have a Spiritual Gift of Healing. (Christian Bible, New Testimate, 1 Corinthians Chapter 12 Spiritual Gift).
They may have had an increase applied to Chakras which can be tested. Chakras are connected to Human Living Systems.
These are just a couple of ways that hands on healing can be effective.
https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390
Oh, that was the wonderful study by a girl of what was it, nine years old! An excellent bit of science, and the youngest-ever contributor published in JAMA.
Interesting that the authors of this study omitted the Rosa et al paper from their references.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa
I remembered the story from “Trick or Treatment”. It’s on pp267-269 of that splendid volume..
Thank you for the link to the Wikipedia article. I love the comment by the then editor of JAMA: “Age doesn’t matter. It’s good science that matters, and this is good science”. That’s the spirit!
Leonard, where in the Bible are Chakras mentioned? And, please, it’s not “Testimate”, it’s “Testament”, meaning a bearing of witness, a presentation of testimony, evidence.
Hi guys
1. I have experienced LoH just to see the effects on my LowBackAche LBA.
2. LoH is to place the hands just above the afected part , not touching it.
3. I experienced a warmth at the area.
4. Not all practitioners caused the same effect on me. Most were useless. I found one very effective. When she did LoH on my LBA, I felt a radiation down my sciatic nerve.
5. There is something here.
https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/