Related Experiment Videos
Healing as a therapy for human disease: a systematic review
1Research Council for Complementary Medicine, London, United Kingdom. nca2@le.ac.uk
Summary
Evidence for healing as a complementary therapy is inconclusive due to diverse study methods and results. More rigorous, large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to determine its efficacy in human disease.
Area of Science:
- Complementary Medicine
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Medical Research
Background:
- Healing, broadly defined, is explored as a complementary medical intervention.
- Assessing its efficacy requires rigorous evaluation of published clinical trials.
- Previous research has yielded mixed results, necessitating a systematic review.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the evidence for healing as a complementary therapy in human diseases.
- To systematically review published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) up to the year 2000.
- To assess the methodological quality and heterogeneity of existing studies.
Main Methods:
- Searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, CISCOM) for RCTs.
- Included studies with random assignment to healing or control groups.
- Extracted data and assigned methodological quality scores (Jadad) where possible.
Main Results:
- Identified 59 RCTs, with 22 full reports on healing for existing conditions.
- Ten of these 22 trials reported significant effects, but heterogeneity was high.
- Methodological shortcomings were common; only 8 studies had maximum quality scores.
- Two large, sound trials on intercessory prayer for cardiac patients showed significant benefits.
Conclusions:
- No firm conclusions on healing's efficacy can be drawn due to study heterogeneity and methodological issues.
- Future research requires adequately powered, controlled, and well-described trials.
- Recommended future studies include pragmatic trials for general practice and large RCTs for specific illnesses.