The Efficacy of Hypnotherapy in the Treatment of Psychosomatic Disorders: <i>Meta-analytical Evidence</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnotherapy is claimed to be effective in treatment of psychosomatic disorders. A meta-analysis was conducted with 21 randomized, controlled clinical studies to evaluate efficacy of hypnosis in psychosomatic disorders. Studies compared patients exclusively treated with hypnotherapy to untreated controls. Studies providing adjunctive standard medical care in either treatment condition were also admitted. Hypnotherapy was categorized into classic (n = 9), mixed form (n = 5), and modern (n = 3). Results showed the weighted mean effect size for 21 studies was d(+) = .61 (p = .0000). ANOVA revealed significant differences between classic, mixed, and modern hypnosis. Regression of outcome on treatment dose failed to show a significant relationship. Numerical values for correlation between suggestibility and outcome were only reported in three studies (mean r = .31). The meta-analysis clearly indicates hypnotherapy is highly effective in treatment of psychosomatic disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".