meta-analysis
This review aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of Reiki therapy in alleviating anxiety.
In adherence to academic standards, a thorough search was conducted across esteemed databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library. The primary objective of this search was to pinpoint peer-reviewed articles published in English that satisfied specific criteria: (1) employing an experimental or quasi-experimental study design, (2) incorporating Reiki therapy as the independent variable, (3) encompassing diverse patient populations along with healthy individuals, and (4) assessing anxiety as the measured outcome.
The study involved 824 participants, all of whom were aged 18 years or older. Reiki therapy was found to have a significant effect on anxiety intervention(SMD=-0.82, 95CI -1.29∼-0.36, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the types of subjects (chronically ill individuals and the general adult population) and the dosage/frequency of the intervention (≤ 3 sessions and 6–8 sessions) were significant factors influencing the variability in anxiety reduction.
The authors concluded that short-term Reiki therapy interventions of ≤ 3 sessions and 6–8 sessions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing health and procedural anxiety in patients with chronic conditions such as gastrointestinal endoscopy inflammation, fibromyalgia, and depression, as well as in the general population. It is important to note that the efficacy of Reiki therapy in decreasing preoperative anxiety and death-related anxiety in preoperative patients and cancer patients is somewhat less consistent. These discrepancies may be attributed to individual pathophysiological states, psychological conditions, and treatment expectations.
_______________________
This is a truly stunning finding considering that few treatments are less plausible that Reiki. I strongly suspect that these conclusions are not tenable. To see whether this is true, we must look at the primary studies (tedious, I know, but can’t be helped). Here are the abstracts of the 13 studies included in this review:
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate changes in the anxiety levels of patients receiving preoperative Reiki.
Material and methods: This study used a quasi-experimental model with a pretest-posttest control group.
Methods: Subjects (n = 210) were recruited from a hospital in Turkey, from June 2013 to July 2014. Subjects were then assigned to experimental (n = 105) and control (n = 105) groups.
Results: The level of anxiety of experimental group patients did not change according to their state anxiety scores (p > 0.10); however, the anxiety level of control group patients increased (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The results of this study imply that the administration of Reiki is effective in controlling preoperative anxiety levels and in preventing them from increasing.
I am not sure what is meant by “a quasi-experimental model with pretest- posttest control group”. Yet, I suspect this was not a properly randomised trial and should thus have been exclused from the review. There was no control of placebo effects.
Fatigue is an extremely common side effect experienced during cancer treatment and recovery. Limited research has investigated strategies stemming from complementary and alternative medicine to reduce cancer-related fatigue. This research examined the effects of Reiki, a type of energy touch therapy, on fatigue, pain, anxiety, and overall quality of life. This study was a counterbalanced crossover trial of 2 conditions: (1) in the Reiki condition, participants received Reiki for 5 consecutive daily sessions, followed by a 1-week washout monitoring period of no treatments, then 2 additional Reiki sessions, and finally 2 weeks of no treatments, and (2) in the rest condition, participants rested for approximately 1 hour each day for 5 consecutive days, followed by a 1-week washout monitoring period of no scheduled resting and an additional week of no treatments. In both conditions, participants completed questionnaires investigating cancer-related fatigue (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue subscale [FACT-F]) and overall quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, General Version [FACT-G]) before and after all Reiki or resting sessions. They also completed a visual analog scale (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) assessing daily tiredness, pain, and anxiety before and after each session of Reiki or rest. Sixteen patients (13 women) participated in the trial: 8 were randomized to each order of conditions (Reiki then rest; rest then Reiki). They were screened for fatigue on the ESAS tiredness item, and those scoring greater than 3 on the 0 to 10 scale were eligible for the study. They were diagnosed with a variety of cancers, most commonly colorectal (62.5%) cancer, and had a median age of 59 years. Fatigue on the FACT-F decreased within the Reiki condition (P=.05) over the course of all 7 treatments. In addition, participants in the Reiki condition experienced significant improvements in quality of life (FACT-G) compared to those in the resting condition (P <.05). On daily assessments (ESAS) in the Reiki condition, presession 1 versus postsession 5 scores indicated significant decreases in tiredness (P <.001), pain (P <.005), and anxiety (P<.01), which were not seen in the resting condition. Future research should further investigate the impact of Reiki using more highly controlled designs that include a sham Reiki condition and larger sample sizes.
This was a pilot study which should not report efficacy outcomes merely test the feasibility of a definitive trial. There was no control of placebo effects.
Purpose: This study’s aim is to determine the effect of Reiki when applied before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on levels of anxiety, stress, and comfort.
Design: This single-blind, a pretest and post-test design, randomized, sham-controlled study was held between February and July 2021.
Methods: Patients who met the inclusion criteria were separated by randomization into three groups: Reiki, sham Reiki, and control. A total of 159 patients participated in the study. In the intervention groups (Reiki and sham Reiki), Reiki and sham Reiki were applied once for approximately 20 to 25 minutes before gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Findings: When the Reiki group was compared to the sham Reiki and control groups following the intervention, the decrease in the levels of patient stress (P < .001) and anxiety (P < .001) and the increase in patient comfort (P < .001) were found to be statistically significant.
Conclusions: Reiki applied to patients before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was effective in reducing stress and anxiety and in increasing comfort.
Here an attempt was made to control for placebo effects and to blind patients. Whether the latter was successful was not tested. Thus a placebo effects cannot be excluded.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Reiki as an alternative and complementary approach to treating community-dwelling older adults who experience pain, depression, and/or anxiety. Participants (N = 20) were randomly assigned to either an experimental or wait list control group. The pre- and posttest measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form, Faces Pain Scale, and heart rate and blood pressure. The research design included an experimental component to examine changes in these measures and a descriptive component (semi-structured interview) to elicit information about the experience of having Reiki treatments. Significant differences were observed between the experimental and treatment groups on measures of pain, depression, and anxiety; no changes in heart rate and blood pressure were noted. Content analysis of treatment notes and interviews revealed five broad categories of responses: Relaxation; Improved Physical Symptoms, Mood, and Well-Being; Curiosity and a Desire to Learn More; Enhanced Self-Care; and Sensory and Cognitive Responses to Reiki.
No attempt to control for placebo effects.
Purpose: The purpose of this randomized pilot was to determine feasibility of testing Reiki, a complementary therapy intervention, for women undergoing breast biopsy (BB).
Background: Increasingly women face the possibility of BB, the definitive test for breast cancer. Psychological distress associated with BB includes anxiety and depression. Reiki was proposed as an intervention to decrease anxiety and promote relaxation.
Method: Thirty-two women scheduled for BB were randomized to Reiki intervention versus conventional care control. Anxiety and depression were evaluated using self-report questionnaires.
Findings: Analysis found no significant mean differences between groups over time. Comparably low baseline anxiety levels (possible selection bias) decreased naturally with time allowing little room for observing treatment effect.
Conclusions: Reiki, when administered in the naturalistic setting of a complementary therapy office, did not suggest evidence of efficacy. An intervention offered within the bounds of the conventional care setting may be more feasible for addressing BB distress.
The study failed to produce a positive finding.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Reiki on pain, anxiety, and hemodynamic parameters on postoperative days 1 and 2 in patients who had undergone cesarean delivery. The design of this study was a randomized, controlled clinical trial. The study took place between February and July 2011 in the Obstetrical Unit at Odemis Public Hospital in Izmir, Turkey. Ninety patients equalized by age and number of births were randomly assigned to either a Reiki group or a control group (a rest without treatment). Treatment applied to both groups in the first 24 and 48 hours after delivery for a total of 30 minutes to 10 identified regions of the body for 3 minutes each. Reiki was applied for 2 days once a day (in the first 24 and 48 hours) within 4-8 hours of the administration of standard analgesic, which was administered intravenously by a nurse. A visual analog scale and the State Anxiety Inventory were used to measure pain and anxiety. Hemodynamic parameters, including blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), pulse and breathing rates, and analgesic requirements also were recorded. Statistically significant differences in pain intensity (p = .000), anxiety value (p = .000), and breathing rate (p = .000) measured over time were found between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the time (p = .000) and number (p = .000) of analgesics needed after Reiki application and a rest without treatment. Results showed that Reiki application reduced the intensity of pain, the value of anxiety, and the breathing rate, as well as the need for and number of analgesics. However, it did not affect blood pressure or pulse rate. Reiki application as a nursing intervention is recommended as a pain and anxiety-relieving method in women after cesarean delivery.
No control for placebo effects.
Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of massage and reiki in the reduction of stress and anxiety in clients at the Institute for Integrated and Oriental Therapy in Sao Paulo (Brazil).
Method: clinical tests randomly done in parallel with an initial sample of 122 people divided into three groups: Massage + Rest (G1), Massage + Reiki (G2) and a Control group without intervention (G3). The Stress Systems list and the Trace State Anxiety Inventory were used to evaluate the groups at the start and after 8 sessions (1 month), during 2015.
Results: there were statistical differences (p = 0.000) according to the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) for the stress amongst the groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.014) with a 33% reductions and a Cohen of 0.78. In relation to anxiety-state, there was a reduction in the intervention groups compared with the control group (p < 0.01) with a 21% reduction in group 2 (Cohen of 1.18) and a 16% reduction for group 1 (Cohen of 1.14).
Conclusion: Massage + Reiki produced better results amongst the groups and the conclusion is for further studies to be done with the use of a placebo group to evaluate the impact of the technique separate from other techniques.
No control for placebo effects.
This randomized controlled study aimed to determine the effect of Reiki and aromatherapy on vital signs, oxygen saturation, and anxiety level in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The sample consisted of 100 patients divided into Reiki (n = 34), aromatherapy (n = 33), and control (n = 33) groups. Data were collected 3 times (before, during, and after the procedure) using a descriptive characteristics questionnaire, a follow-up form, and the State Anxiety Subscale. The Reiki group had a mean State Anxiety Subscale score of 53.59 ± 2.98 and 43.94 ± 4.31 before and after the procedure, respectively. The aromatherapy group had a mean State Anxiety Subscale score of 54.03 ± 4.03 and 43.85 ± 3.91 before and after the procedure, respectively. The control group had a mean State Anxiety Subscale score of 38.79 ± 4.68 and 53.30 ± 7.26 before and after the procedure, respectively (P < .05). The results showed that the Reiki and aromatherapy groups had significantly lower State Anxiety Subscale scores than the control group after the procedure, indicating that Reiki and aromatherapy help reduce anxiety levels. There was a significant difference in the mean respiratory rates and oxygen saturation levels between the groups (P < .05). In conclusion, patients who do Reiki or undergo aromatherapy are less likely to experience anxiety before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
No control for placebo effects.
The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of Reiki application on pain, anxiety, and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia. The study was completed with a total of 50 patients: 25 in the experimental group and 25 in the control group. Reiki was applied to the experimental group and sham Reiki to the control group once a week for 4 weeks. Data were collected from the participants using the Information Form, Visual Analog Scale, McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Short Form-36. There was a significant difference between the mean Visual Analog Scale pain scores during and before the first week (P = .012), second week (P = .002), and fourth week (P = .020) measurements of the individuals in the experimental and control groups, after application. In addition, at the end of the 4-week period, the State Anxiety Inventory (P = .005) and the Trait Anxiety Inventory (P = .003) were significantly decreased in the Reiki group compared with the control group. Physical function (P = .000), energy (P = .009), mental health (P = .018), and pain (P = .029) subdimension scores of quality of life in the Reiki group increased significantly compared with the control group. Reiki application to patients with fibromyalgia may have positive effects on reducing pain, improving quality of life, and reducing state and trait anxiety levels.
Here an attempt was made to control for placebo effects and to blind patients. Whether the latter was successful was not tested. Thus a placebo effects cannot be excluded. The sample size was small.
Background: Reiki is a biofield therapy which is based on the explanatory model that the fields of energy and information of living systems can be influenced to promote relaxation and stimulate a healing response.
Objective: To conduct a pragmatic within-subject pilot trial of a remote Reiki program for frontline healthcare workers’ health-related symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: Healthcare professionals in the UK (eg, physicians, nurses, and paramedics) were eligible to sign up for a distance Reiki program and were also invited to participate in the research study. Eight Reiki practitioners simultaneously gave each participant Reiki remotely for 20 minutes on 4 consecutive days. Feasibility of the research was assessed, including recruitment, data completeness, acceptability and intervention fidelity, and preliminary evaluation of changes in outcome measures. Participants’ stress, anxiety, pain, wellbeing, and sleep quality were evaluated with 7-point numerical rating scales. Measures were completed when signing up to receive Reiki (pre) and following the final Reiki session (post). Pre and post data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests.
Results: Seventy-nine healthcare professionals signed up to receive Reiki and took the baseline measures. Of those, 40 completed post-measures after the 4-day intervention and were therefore included in the pre-post analysis. Most participants were female (97.5%), and the mean age was 43.9 years old (standard deviations = 11.2). The study was feasible to conduct, with satisfactory recruitment, data completeness, acceptability, and fidelity. Wilcoxon signed ranks tests revealed statistically significant decreases in stress (M = -2.33; P < .001), anxiety (M = -2.79; P < .001) and pain (M = -.79; P < .001), and significant increases in wellbeing (M = -1.79; P < .001) and sleep quality (M = -1.33; P = .019).
Conclusions: The Reiki program was feasible and was associated with decreased stress, anxiety and pain, and increased wellbeing and sleep quality in frontline healthcare workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pilot study should not report efficacy findings and should be excluded.
Background: There is a scarcity of studies in the international literature regarding alternative treatment to the pharmacological and psychotherapeutic intervention in the face of depression symptoms. This study aimed to test a protocol based on natural therapy, alternatives to pharmacological and psychotherapeutic, through Mindfulness Meditation, Reiki, Acupuncture and Auriculotherapy, to treat the symptoms of depression for those who were with no pharmacological or psychotherapeutic treatment for these symptoms.
Methods: this is a randomized single-blind controlled pilot study. The final sample was 21 participants divided in two groups: experimental and control. Participants were evaluated by validated instruments during the screening process and after the intervention. The instruments were: Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale and Beck Depression Inventory. Intervention was performed in eight sessions, during two months. All the techniques were used in the experimental group. Analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to compare pre-intervention to post-intervention moments.
Results: the result of analysis indicates a significant reduction in the symptoms of depression after the intervention among the experimental group.
Limitations: there is no way to determine which of the techniques used produced the most significant result.
Conclusions: The protocol proposed in this study was effective in reducing the symptoms of depression to whom are not eligible for traditional treatment.
This is a pilot study and should not report efficacy findings. It is also not a study of just Reiki. It should have been excluded.
This is a constructive replication of a previous trial conducted by Bowden et al. (2010), where students who had received Reiki demonstrated greater health and mood benefits than those who received no Reiki. The current study examined impact on anxiety/depression. 40 university students-half with high depression and/or anxiety and half with low depression and/or anxiety-were randomly assigned to receive Reiki or to a non-Reiki control group. Participants experienced six 30-minute sessions over a period of two to eight weeks, where they were blind to whether noncontact Reiki was administered as their attention was absorbed in a guided relaxation. The efficacy of the intervention was assessed pre-post intervention and at five-week follow-up by self-report measures of mood, illness symptoms, and sleep. The participants with high anxiety and/or depression who received Reiki showed a progressive improvement in overall mood, which was significantly better at five-week follow-up, while no change was seen in the controls. While the Reiki group did not demonstrate the comparatively greater reduction in symptoms of illness seen in our earlier study, the findings of both studies suggest that Reiki may benefit mood.
No control for placebo effects
This is a constructive replication of a previous trial conducted by Bowden et al. (2010), where students who had received Reiki demonstrated greater health and mood benefits than those who received no Reiki. The current study examined impact on anxiety/depression. 40 university students-half with high depression and/or anxiety and half with low depression and/or anxiety-were randomly assigned to receive Reiki or to a non-Reiki control group. Participants experienced six 30-minute sessions over a period of two to eight weeks, where they were blind to whether noncontact Reiki was administered as their attention was absorbed in a guided relaxation. The efficacy of the intervention was assessed pre-post intervention and at five-week follow-up by self-report measures of mood, illness symptoms, and sleep. The participants with high anxiety and/or depression who received Reiki showed a progressive improvement in overall mood, which was significantly better at five-week follow-up, while no change was seen in the controls. While the Reiki group did not demonstrate the comparatively greater reduction in symptoms of illness seen in our earlier study, the findings of both studies suggest that Reiki may benefit mood.
This is the only rigorous study included in the review. Its findings are not easy to interpret (“For the sample as a whole, as can be seen from the total group means, there was little change over the course of the study”)
__________________________
Even though I did not have access to the full text of all of these RCTs, this analysis tells me a few important things; here are some of the main points I discovered:
- the new review is fatally flawed;
- the authors’ statement that their “article presents a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines” is nonsensical;
- PRISMA guidelines were certainly not adhered to;
- there is no truly critical assessment of the primary studies;
- the literature searches were incomplete;
- the risk of bias tool for evaluating the primary studies was employed incorrectly;
- the review did not include all RCTs of Reiki (our own 2008 review included several trials that are not included here, and this blog has a few more);
- the review includes several studies that should have been excluded;
- most Reiki studies are of poor quality;
- with both the review and most of the primary studies, one feels a strong bias towards trying to prove that Reiki works;
- Reiki research is firmly in the hands of nurses (almost all the studies were conducted by nurses);
- almost all of the RCTs test Reiki versus no treatment, and this means that most do not control for placebo (or other non-specific) effects. In other words, the conclusions stating that Reiki is effective are simply wrong.
I am dismayed to see that a decent journal (BMC Palliative Care) published such a fatally flawed review. The paper fails to discuss any of its obvious flaws. Specifically, it does not even specify what interventions were used in the various control groups. Do the journal editors, peer-reviewers and authors not appreciate that, without such information, the findings are uninterpretable? Or do they perhaps deliberately try to mislead us?
If you ask me, this paper should be best withdrawn.
Our own review of Reiki is no longer up-to-date. Yet, it’s conclusion is, in my view, far more accurate than the one offered by the authors of the fatally flawed new review:
the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral or topical pain medications in the management of neck pain.
The investigators searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to oral or topical medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. Trials with usual care arms were also included if they prescribed medication as part of the usual care and they did not include a manual therapy component. The authors used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence.
Nine trials with a total of 779 participants were included in the meta-analysis.
- low certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants),
- moderate certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: −0.36; 95% CI −0.55 to −0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants),
- low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients who received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants).
The authors conluded that MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety.
Let’s have a look at the primary studies. Here they are with their conclusions (and, where appropriate, my comments in capital letters):
- For participants with acute and subacute neck pain, spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was more effective than medication in both the short and long term. However, a few instructional sessions of home exercise with (HEA) resulted in similar outcomes at most time points. EXERCISE WAS AS EFFECTIVE AS SMT
- Oral ibuprofen (OI) pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered. MEDICATION WAS BETTER THAN MT
- It appears that both treatment strategies (usual care + MT vs usual care) can have equivalent positive influences on headache complaints. Additional studies with larger study populations are needed to draw firm conclusions. Recommendations to increase patient inflow in primary care trials, such as the use of an extended network of participating physicians and of clinical alert software applications, are discussed. MT DOES NOT IMPROVE OUTCOMES
- The consistency of the results provides, in spite of several discussed shortcomings of this pilot study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater improvement than acupuncture and medicine. THIS IS A PILOT STUDY, A TRIAL TESTING FEASIBILITY, NOT EFFECTIVENESS
- The consistency of the results provides, despite some discussed shortcomings of this study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain, manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater short-term improvement than acupuncture or medication. However, the data do not strongly support the use of only manipulation, only acupuncture, or only nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. The results from this exploratory study need confirmation from future larger studies.
- In daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.
- Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up. MT IS NOT SUPERIOR [SAME TRIAL AS No 6]
- In this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.
- In patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes, spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, may be the only treatment modality of the assessed regimens that provides broad and significant long-term benefit. SAME TRIAL AS No 5
- An impairment-based manual physical therapy and exercise (MTE) program resulted in clinically and statistically significant short- and long-term improvements in pain, disability, and patient-perceived recovery in patients with mechanical neck pain when compared to a program comprising advice, a mobility exercise, and subtherapeutic ultrasound. THIS STUDY DID NOT TEST MT ALONE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
I cannot bring myself to characterising this as an overall positive result for MT; anyone who can is guilty of wishful thinking, in my view. The small differences in favor of MT that (some of) the trials report have little to do with the effectiveness of MT itself. They are almost certainly due to the fact that none of these studies were placebo-controlled and double blind (even though this would clearly be possible). In contrast to popping a pill, MT involves extra attention, physical touch, empathy, etc. These factors easily suffice to bring about the small differences that some studies report.
It follows that the main conclusion of the authors of the review should be modified:
There is no compelling evidence to show that MT is more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of spiritually based interventions on blood pressure (BP) among adults. A systematic search was performed using the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify studies evaluating spiritual interventions, including:
- meditation,
- transcendental meditation,
- mindfulness meditation,
- yoga,
for high BP among adults up to January 1, 2022.
The inclusion criteria were:
- (a) randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
- (b) studies in English or Persian,
- (c) studies conducted among adults (≥ 18 years),
- (d) studies reporting systolic or diastolic BP.
Given the high heterogeneity of these studies, a random effect model was used to calculate the effect sizes for the RCTs.
In total, the systematic review included 24 studies and the meta-analysis included 23 studies. As some of studies reported two or more outcome measurements, separate estimates of each outcome were extracted for that study (24 datasets). Fifteen trials reported the mean (SD) systolic blood pressure (SBP), and 13 trials reported the mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In addition, 13 studies reported means (SDs) and six trials reported mean changes in DBP. A significant decrease was found in systolic BP following intervention ((WMD (weighted mean difference) = − 7.63 [− 9.61 to − 5.65; P < 0.001]). We observed significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 96.9; P < 0.001). A significant decrease was observed in DBP following the interventions (WMD = − 4.75 [− 6.45 to − 3.05; P < 0.001]).
The authors concluded that spiritually based interventions including meditation and yoga had beneficial effects in reducing both SBP and DBP. Reducing BP can be expected to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases.
Q: What do the RCTs of these interventions have in common?
A: They cannot normally be placebo-controlled because no adequate placebos exist for these therapies.
Q: What does that mean?
A: It means that patients could not be blinded and that patient expectations influenced the outcome.
In view of the fact that blood pressure is an endpoint that is extremely sensitive to expectation, I think, the conclusions of this paper might need to be re-formulated:
This analysis confirms that expectation can have beneficial effects in reducing both SBP and DBP. Reducing BP can be expected to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases.
These days, it has become a rare event – I am speaking of me publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But it has just happened: Spanish researchers and I published a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy. Here is its abstract:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.
Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.
We concluded that the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.
So, CST is not really an effective option for any condition.
Not a big surprise! After all, the assumptions on which CST is based fly in the face of science.
Since CST is nonetheless being used by many healthcare professionals, it is, I feel, important to state and re-state that CST is an implausible intervention that is not supported by clinical evidence. Hopefully then, one day, these practitioners will remember that their ethical obligation is to treat their patients not according to their beliefs but according to the best available evidence. And, hopefully, our modest paper will have helped rendering healthcare a little less irrational and somewhat more effective.
The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify the optimal dose and modality of exercise for treating major depressive disorder, compared with psychotherapy, antidepressants, and control conditions.
The screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Bayesian arm based, multilevel network meta-analyses were performed for the primary analyses. Quality of the evidence for each arm was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. All randomised trials with exercise arms for participants meeting clinical cut-offs for major depression were included.
A total of 218 unique studies with a total of 495 arms and 14 170 participants were included. Compared with active controls (eg, usual care, placebo tablet), moderate reductions in depression were found for
- walking or jogging,
- strength training,
- mixed aerobic exercises,
- and tai chi or qigong.
The effects of exercise were proportional to the intensity prescribed. Strength training and yoga appeared to be the most acceptable modalities. Results appeared robust to publication bias, but only one study met the Cochrane criteria for low risk of bias. As a result, confidence in accordance with CINeMA was low for walking or jogging and very low for other treatments.
The authors concluded that exercise is an effective treatment for depression, with walking or jogging, yoga, and strength training more effective than other exercises, particularly when intense. Yoga and strength training were well tolerated compared with other treatments. Exercise appeared equally effective for people with and without comorbidities and with different baseline levels of depression. To mitigate expectancy effects, future studies could aim to blind participants and staff. These forms of exercise could be considered alongside psychotherapy and antidepressants as core treatments for depression.
As far as I can see, there are two main problems with these findings:
- Because too many of the studies are less than rigorous, the results are not quite as certain as the conclusions would seem to imply.
- Patients suffering from a major depressive disorder are often unable (too fatigued, demotivated, etc.) to do and/or keep up vigorous excerise over any length of time.
What I find furthermore puzzling is that, on the one hand, the results show that – as one might expect – the effects are proportional to the intensity of the excercise but, on the other hand tai chi and qugong which are both distinctly low-intensity turn out to be effective.
Nonetheless, this excellent paper is undoubtedly good news and offers hope for patients who are in desperate need of effective, safe and economical treatments.
These days – 11 years after the closure of my department at Exeter – it is not often that I co-author a peer-reviewed paper. All the more reason, I think, to celebrate when it does happen:
Our review was aimed at determining the effectiveness of meditation, primarily mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and transcendental meditation (TM), for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 14 November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 weeks or more in adults at high risk of CVD and those with established CVD. We explored four comparisons: MBIs versus active comparators (alternative interventions); MBIs versus non-active comparators (no intervention, wait list, usual care); TM versus active comparators; TM versus non-active comparators. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were CVD clinical events (e.g. cardiovascular mortality), blood pressure, measures of psychological distress and well-being, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included other CVD risk factors (e.g. blood lipid levels), quality of life, and coping abilities. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
We included 81 RCTs (6971 participants), with most studies at unclear risk of bias. MBIs versus active comparators (29 RCTs, 2883 participants) Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were reported in six trials (388 participants) where heterogeneity was considerable (SBP: MD -6.08 mmHg, 95% CI -12.79 to 0.63, I2 = 88%; DBP: MD -5.18 mmHg, 95% CI -10.65 to 0.29, I2 = 91%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect of MBIs on anxiety (SMD -0.06 units, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.13; I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or depression (SMD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.24; I2 = 0%; 11 trials, 595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Perceived stress was reduced with MBIs (SMD -0.24 units, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.03; I2 = 0%; P = 0.03; 6 trials, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on well-being (SMD -0.18 units, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.32; 1 trial, 63 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.68; I2 = 79%; 6 trials, 1087 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events or adverse events. MBIs versus non-active comparators (38 RCTs, 2905 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (110 participants), providing very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.42). SBP and DBP were reduced in nine trials (379 participants) but heterogeneity was substantial (SBP: MD -6.62 mmHg, 95% CI -13.15 to -0.1, I2 = 87%; DBP: MD -3.35 mmHg, 95% CI -5.86 to -0.85, I2 = 61%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of reductions in anxiety (SMD -0.78 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.41; I2 = 61%; 9 trials, 533 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.66 units, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.41; I2 = 67%; 15 trials, 912 participants; low-certainty evidence) and perceived stress (SMD -0.59 units, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.29; I2 = 70%; 11 trials, 708 participants; low-certainty evidence) but heterogeneity was substantial. Well-being increased (SMD 0.5 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.91; I2 = 47%; 2 trials, 198 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.13; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence). One small study (18 participants) reported two adverse events in the MBI group, which were not regarded as serious by the study investigators (RR 5.0, 95% CI 0.27 to 91.52; low-certainty evidence). No subgroup effects were seen for SBP, DBP, anxiety, depression, or perceived stress by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus active comparators (8 RCTs, 830 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (201 participants) based on low-certainty evidence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). SBP was reduced (MD -2.33 mmHg, 95% CI -3.99 to -0.68; I2 = 2%; 8 trials, 774 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with an uncertain effect on DBP (MD -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.55; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect on anxiety (SMD 0.06 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.33; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 200 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.12 units, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 421 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or perceived stress (SMD 0.04 units, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.57; I2 = 70%; 3 trials, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported adverse events or smoking rates. No subgroup effects were seen for SBP or DBP by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus non-active comparators (2 RCTs, 186 participants) Two trials (139 participants) reported blood pressure, where reductions were seen in SBP (MD -6.34 mmHg, 95% CI -9.86 to -2.81; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -5.13 mmHg, 95% CI -9.07 to -1.19; I2 = 18%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial (112 participants) reported anxiety and depression and found reductions in both (anxiety SMD -0.71 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.32; depression SMD -0.48 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.11; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events, adverse events, or smoking rates.
We concluded that despite the large number of studies included in the review, heterogeneity was substantial for many of the outcomes, which reduced the certainty of our findings. We attempted to address this by presenting four main comparisons of MBIs or TM versus active or inactive comparators, and by subgroup analyses according to primary or secondary prevention, where there were sufficient studies. The majority of studies were small and there was unclear risk of bias for most domains. Overall, we found very little information on the effects of meditation on CVD clinical endpoints, and limited information on blood pressure and psychological outcomes, for people at risk of or with established CVD. This is a very active area of research as shown by the large number of ongoing studies, with some having been completed at the time of writing this review. The status of all ongoing studies will be formally assessed and incorporated in further updates.
Some people will say that meditation is not a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) but rather an aspect of lifestyle used for relaxation and well-being. As such, it should not be scrutinized like a therapy. This might be partly true, but as soon as proper health claims are made for meditation or similar modalities, they do need to be tested like any other therapy, in my view.
As our review demonstrates, meditation and similar treatments are not nearly as well supported by evidence as their proponents try to make us believe. In other words, the often-voiced claims that such therapies are effective for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease are largely unfounded.
Guest post by Udo Endruscheit
Switzerland is probably the European country with the strangest complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) regulations in the health insurance system. A total of five different CAM methods have been included in the benefits catalogue of basic insurance for several years. However, this is subject to a strange proviso. How did this come about?
As almost everywhere in Europe, there was a desire in Switzerland in the 1990s to include CAM in the public healthcare system, with homeopathy naturally once again taking pole position. Initially, the urge to include five CAM modalities in basic care was granted, but only provisionally. A major project called the “Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme” (PEK) was launched in 1999 to evaluate the procedures. Even back then, the criteria of efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness were prerequisites for reimbursement in health insurance. PEK was intended to create clarity here.
One part of PEK has been the well-known Shang/Egger (2005) study on homeopathy “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy”, which was to become a bone of contention without precedent. However, this did not change the negative result for homeopathy.
In any case, clear conclusions were drawn in Switzerland not only from this study, but also from the results of the other evaluations: the provisional inclusion of the methods in statutory basic insurance was terminated.
This in turn enraged the supporters of CAM methods, who thought they had already reached their goal with the provisional decision in their favour. Apparently, they had not even considered the possibility that scientific evaluations could actually lead to a sudden end to their wishes, which they believed had already been fulfilled.
In fact, in 2009, the friends of ineffective methods succeeded in bringing about one of the referendums for which Switzerland is known under the catchphrase “direct democracy”. And they prevailed – around two thirds of the votes cast were in favour of CAM and its inclusion in the Swiss Federal Constitution. However, it should be borne in mind that the two-thirds figure is put into perspective if the approval, including the low voter turnout, is converted to the proportion of the total electorate. This leaves just 17 per cent who voted for the CAM. And a closer look at the issue of the constitution also reveals that no unconditional protection space has been created for CAM. This is more or less a kind of good behaviour clause for CAM methods, but not rules that could render laws null and void.
The Swiss government was faced with the question of how to avoid simply ignoring the result of the referendum, while at the same time complying with the still valid requirements for reimbursement in basic insurance. So the representatives of the five CAM directions were actually asked to come to the Federal Office of Public Health with their proof of efficacy and economic efficiency. This was done in 2011.
Of course, this was a little bizarre at this stage – and of course nothing came of it. Or actually it did: once again, no proof could be provided. Meanwhile, a lot of time had passed again and a new Federal Council was forced to take up the matter.
The latter, Alain Berset, came up with the plan that the necessary proof of efficacy could actually be postponed until after the methods had been included in the catalogue of basic insurance benefits. In other words, he gave the methods a governmental leap of faith (which, in view of the long-year history of the case, meant closing several eyes) and postulated that this should be the matter until someone applied for an evaluation of one of the methods.
This is what happened in the year of our Lord 2017. Apparently everyone was able to make their peace with it, which is hardly surprising after ten years of moving around and around. Only the umbrella organisation of health insurers, Santesuisse, grumbled about it and predicted that the announced cost neutrality of such a measure could hardly be expected. Which Santesuisse did indeed prove in a dossier two years later.
The exhausted Swiss have so far left it at that. Homeopathy remained untouched. This was also unfortunate for the reason that the fairy tale of the clever and innovative Switzerland, which knew how important the wishes and preferences of its patients were, was propagated in Germany. The rather strange result of more than ten years of struggle was even passed around by German homeopaths under the name “Swiss model”. Even the leading Swiss press was embarrassed by this and published a clarifying article. And unfortunately, the Swiss began to get used to the existence of hocus-pocus in their basic insurance and to take it for granted.
Until now. Even in Switzerland, the fact that homeopathy is coming under increasing criticism everywhere has probably not gone unnoticed. And the Swiss are actually a rather critical and resistant people. And so it happened that a single brave inhabitant of the country recently decided to exercise his right to demand a new evaluation of homeopathy. The Federal Office of Public Health must have been surprised – or perhaps they were desperately waiting for it? Perhaps. In any case, the application was accepted without hesitation. Meanwhile, a notification has been issued that the hearing procedure for the evaluation has been initiated. The representatives of homeopathy (the service providers), the representatives of the Swiss medical profession and the representatives of the health insurance companies – the aforementioned Santesuisse – will be heard. The final decision will then be made by the Swiss government’s Department of Home Affairs.
How many attempts at an evaluation has this actually been – the third? The fourth? We can’t keep up … We have seen the consequences of scientific questions being decided by majorities. It is to be hoped that Switzerland will not add another chapter to the drama that has been going on since 2005. Mr Berset’s successor, who has been in office since the beginning of the year, should only be given a brief reminder: in Switzerland, too, homeopathy has no effect beyond contextual effects. And that is not enough to prove efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness.
But cheers to the courageous descendant of William Tell, who is about to single-handedly bring down homeopathy in the Swiss healthcare system!
This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain (LBP). Medline, Embase, Scopus and WANFANG databases were searched for relevant cupping RCTs on low back pain articles up to 2023. A complementary search was manually made on 27 September for update screening. Full-text English and Chinese articles on all ethnic adults with LBP of cupping management were included. Studies looking at acute low back pain only were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data, with any disagreement resolved through consensus by a third reviewer. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers using an adapted tool. Change-from-baseline outcomes were treated as continuous variables and calculated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Data were extracted and pooled into the meta-analysis by Review Manager software (version 5.4, Nordic Cochrane Centre).
Eleven trials involving 921 participants were included. Five studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias, and six studies were of acceptable quality. The findings reveal:
- High-quality evidence demonstrated cupping significantly improves pain at 2-8 weeks endpoint intervention (d=1.09, 95% CI: [0.35-1.83], p=0.004).
- There was no continuous pain improvement observed at one month (d=0.11, 95% CI: [-1.02-1.23], p=0.85) and 3-6 months (d=0.39, 95% CI: [-0.09-0.87], p=0.11).
- Dry cupping did not improve pain (d=1.06, 95% CI: [-0.34, 2.45], p=0.14) compared with wet cupping (d=1.5, 95% CI: [0.39-2.6], p=0.008) at the endpoint intervention.
- There was no evidence indicating the association between pain reduction and different types of cupping (p=0.2).
- Moderate- to low-quality evidence showed that cupping did not reduce chronic low back pain (d=0.74, 95% CI: [-0.67-2.15], p=0.30) and non-specific chronic low back pain (d=0.27, 95% CI: [-1.69-2.24], p=0.78) at the endpoint intervention.
- Cupping on acupoints showed a significant improvement in pain (d=1.29, 95% CI: [0.63-1.94], p<0.01) compared with the lower back area (d=0.35, 95% CI: [-0.29-0.99], p=0.29).
- A potential association between pain reduction and different cupping locations (p=0.05) was found.
- Meta-analysis showed a significant effect on pain improvement compared to medication therapy (n=8; d=1.8 [95% CI: 1.22 – 2.39], p<0.001) and usual care (n=5; d=1.07 [95% CI: 0.21- 1.93], p=0.01).
- Two studies demonstrated that cupping significantly mediated sensory and emotional pain immediately, after 24 hours, and 2 weeks post-intervention (d= 5.49, 95% CI [4.13-6.84], p<0.001).
- Moderate evidence suggested that cupping improved disability at the 1-6 months follow-up (d=0.67, 95% CI: [0.06-1.28], p=0.03).
- There was no immediate effect observed at the 2-8 weeks endpoint (d=0.40, 95% CI: [-0.51-1.30], p=0.39).
- A high degree of heterogeneity was noted in the subgroup analysis (I2 >50%).
The authors concluded that high- to moderate-quality evidence indicates that cupping significantly improves pain and disability. The effectiveness of cupping for LBP varies based on treatment durations, cupping types, treatment locations, and LBP classifications. Cupping demonstrated a superior and sustained effect on pain reduction compared with medication and usual care. The notable heterogeneity among studies raises concerns about the certainty of these findings. Further research should be designed with a standardized cupping manipulation that specifies treatment sessions, frequency, cupping types, and treatment locations. The real therapeutic effects of cupping could be confirmed using a sham device or objective outcome measurements. Studies with at least six- to twelve-month follow-ups are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy of cupping in managing LBP.
Confused?
No need, it’s really quite simple: cupping can, according to this review, be shown to have some short-lasting effect, provided the study is flawed and does not control for placebo effects.
Surprised?
No need! There is hardly a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that does not have a similarly small effect of back pain, if tested in equally dodgy studies. This is particularly true for those treatments that can act as a theatrical placebo, e.g. acupuncture or chiropractic.
So, should a back pain sufferer try cupping?
If he/she insists, why not? But please don’t use wet cupping (which can do quite a bit of harm). Dry cupping (without injuring the skin) is arguably better (less risk, less expense, possibility of home treatment by your partner) than chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, or many other SCAMs.
My conclusions – as mentioned many times previously – are as follows:
- Most SCAMs help a little with back pain (and similar conditions) because they can have a powerful placebo effect.
- Conventional medicine is also not convincingly effective for back pain.
- If you insist on SCAM, it is best to use one that is relatively harmless and inexpensive.
NICE helps practitioners and commissioners get the best care to patients, fast, while ensuring value for the taxpayer. Internationally, NICE has a reputation for being reliable and trustworthy. But is that also true for its recommendations regarding the use of acupuncture? NICE currently recommends that patients consider acupuncture as a treatment option for the following conditions:
- chronic (long-term) pain
- chronic tension-type headaches
- migraines
- prostatitis symptoms
- hiccups
Confusingly, on a different site, NICE also recommends acupuncture for retinal migraine, a very specific type of migraine that affect normally just one eye with symptoms such as vision loss lasting up to one hour, a blind spot in the vision, headache, blurred vision and seeing flashing lights, zigzag patterns or coloured spots or lines, as well as feeling nauseous or being sick.
I think this perplexing situation merits a look at the evidence. Here I quote the conclusions of recent, good quality, and (where possible) independent reviews:
- Chronic pain: Acupuncture is efficacious for reducing pain in patients with LBP… Further research needs to be done to evaluate acupuncture’s efficacy in these conditions, especially for abdominal pain, as many of the current studies have a risk of bias due to lack of blinding and small sample size.
- Chronic tension-type headaches (TTH): Acupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment for TTH patients. Due to low or very low certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity, more rigorous RCTs are needed to verify the effect and safety of acupuncture in the management of TTH.
- Migraines: Many studies suggest that acupuncture is a safe, helpful and available alternative therapy that may be beneficial to certain migraine patients. Nevertheless, further large-scale RCTs are warranted to further consolidate these findings and provide further support for the clinical value of acupuncture. Despite previous studies that have analyzed the effects of acupuncture on migraine, there is still a need for further investigation to ensure that the incorporation of acupuncture into migraine treatment management will have a positive outcome on patients.
- Prostatitis: This meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture has measurable benefits on CP/CPPS, and security has also been ensured. However, this meta-analysis only included 10 RCTs; thus, RCTs with a larger sample size and longer-term observation are required to verify the effectiveness of acupuncture further in the future.
- Hiccups: All of these studies sought to determine the effectiveness of different acupuncture techniques in the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups. All four studies had a high risk of bias, did not compare the intervention with placebo, and failed to report side effects or adverse events for either the treatment or control groups.
- Retinal migraine: no evidence
So, what do we make of this? I think that, on the basis of the evidence:
- a positive recommendation for all types of chromic pain is not warranted;
- a positive recommendation for the treatment of TTH is questionable;
- a positive recommendation for migraine is questionable;
- a positive recommendation for prostatitis is questionable;
- a positive recommendation for hiccups is not warranted;
- a positive recommendation for retinal migraine is not warranted.
But why did NICE issue positive recommendations despite weak or even non-existent evidence?
SEARCH ME!
.
Omega-3 fatty acids (fish oil) supplementation reduces the occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD-related mortality in patients at high-risk of CVD and in patients with elevated plasma triglyceride level. Yet, some studies have found an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates and significant public health burden. Previous studies of the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on AF occurrence have reported contradictory results.
This review evaluated the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of AF. The results suggest that omega-3 fatty acids supplementation is associated with increased AF risk, particularly in trials that used high doses. Therefore, several factors should be considered before prescribing omega-3 fatty acids, including their dose, type, and formulation (fish, dietary fish oil supplements, and purified fatty acids), as well as patient-related factors and atrial mechanical milieu. Because the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids are dose-dependent, the associated AF risk should be balanced against the benefit for CVD. Patients who take omega-3 fatty acids, particularly at high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia.
Another recent review included 54,799 participants from 17 cohorts. A total of 7,720 incident cases of AF were ascertained after a median 13.3 years of follow-up. In multivariable analysis, EPA levels were not associated with incident AF, HR per interquintile range (ie, the difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles) was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.95-1.05). HRs for higher levels of DPA, DHA, and EPA+DHA, were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96), and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99), respectively.
The authors concluded that in vivo levels of omega-3 fatty acids including EPA, DPA, DHA, and EPA+DHA were not associated with increased risk of incident AF. Our data suggest the safety of habitual dietary intakes of omega-3 fatty acids with respect to AF risk. Coupled with the known benefits of these fatty acids in the prevention of adverse coronary events, our study suggests that current dietary guidelines recommending fish/omega-3 fatty acid consumption can be maintained.
Faced with contradictory results based on non-RCT evidence, we clearly need an RCT. Luckily such a trial has recently been published. It was an ancillary study of a 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial involving 25 119 women and men aged 50 years or older without prior cardiovascular disease, cancer, or AF. Participants were recruited directly by mail between November 2011 and March 2014 from all 50 US states and were followed up until December 31, 2017.
Participants were randomized to receive EPA-DHA (460 mg/d of EPA and 380 mg/d of DHA) and vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d) (n = 6272 analyzed); EPA-DHA and placebo (n = 6270 analyzed); vitamin D3 and placebo (n = 6281 analyzed); or 2 placebos (n = 6296 analyzed). The primary outcome was incident AF confirmed by medical record review.
Among the 25 119 participants who were randomized and included in the analysis (mean age, 66.7 years; 50.8% women), 24 127 (96.1%) completed the trial. Over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary end point of incident AF occurred in 900 participants (3.6% of study population). For the EPA-DHA vs placebo comparison, incident AF events occurred in 469 (3.7%) vs 431 (3.4%) participants, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19). For the vitamin D3 vs placebo comparison, incident AF events occurred in 469 (3.7%) vs 431 (3.4%) participants, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.25; P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the 2 study agents (P = .39).
The authors concluded that among adults aged 50 years or older, treatment with EPA-DHA or vitamin D3, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the risk of incident AF over a median follow-up of more than 5 years. The findings do not support the use of either agent for the primary prevention of incident AF.
So, does the regular supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids increase the risk of atrial fibrillation? The evidence is not entirely clear but, on balance, I conclude that the risk is low or even non-existent.
