Biofield Therapies Clinical Research Landscape: A Scoping Review and Interactive Evidence Map
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Biofield Therapies, with a historical lineage spanning millennia and continuing relevance in contemporary practices, have been used to address various health conditions and promote wellbeing. The scientific study and adoption of these therapies have been hindered by cultural challenges and institutional barriers. In addition, the current research landscape for Biofield Therapies is insufficiently documented. Objectives: This scoping review aims to comprehensively document the peer-reviewed research landscape of Biofield Therapies. Furthermore, an online searchable and dynamic Evidence Map was created to serve as a publicly accessible tool for querying the evidence base, pinpointing research gaps, and identifying areas requiring further exploration. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases was conducted from inception through January 2024. Peer-reviewed interventional studies in English involving human participants receiving Biofield Therapy were included. Data on study design, population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, citation details, and direction of results reported were extracted and synthesized into two summary tables and three data tables. Results: In total, 353 studies in 352 published reports were included: 255 randomized controlled trials, 36 controlled clinical trials, and 62 pre-post study designs. Named biofield interventions included Reiki ( n = 88), Therapeutic Touch ( n = 71), Healing Touch ( n = 31), intercessory prayer ( n = 21), External Qigong ( n = 16), Spiritual Healing/Spiritual Passé/Laying-on-of-hands ( n = 14), “distant or remote healing” ( n = 10), and Gentle Human Touch/Yakson Therapeutic Touch ( n = 9). Also included were 56 studies in 55 reports involving bespoke, unknown, or other interventions, 20 studies involving multimodal interventions, and 17 studies involving multiple biofield interventions. Studies encompassed a wide variety of populations, most commonly healthy volunteers ( n = 67), pain ( n = 55), and cancer ( n = 46). As reported in the Abstracts, nearly half of the studies ( n = 172) reported positive results in favor of the Biofield Therapy for all outcomes being investigated, 95 reported mixed results, 71 reported nonsignificant results, 3 reported negative results, and 12 studies did not report the direction of results. Conclusions: Despite rising interest in Biofield Therapies among researchers, practitioners, and patients, the integration of these interventions into allopathic medical systems is hindered by challenges in researching these therapies and inconsistent reporting. These issues contribute to inconclusive findings, which limit our understanding of the efficacy of Biofield Therapies for specific conditions. The resulting scoping review and interactive Evidence Map aim to empower stakeholders to overcome these obstacles, thereby strengthening the evidence for the potential adoption of Biofield Therapies as future integrative care options in allopathic medicine.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».