2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Meta-analytic evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis for mental and somatic health issues: a 20 year perspective

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Documented use and investigation of hypnosis spans centuries and its therapeutic use has received endorsement by multiple medical associations. We conducted a comprehensive overview of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of hypnosis to provide a foundational understanding of hypnosis in evidence-based healthcare, insight into the safety of hypnosis interventions, and identification of gaps in the current research literature.

          Methods

          In our systematic review, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of hypnosis in patients with mental or somatic health problems compared to any control condition published after the year 2000 were included. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, HTA Database, Web of Science and a manual search was conducted to identify eligible reviews. Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was rated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Effect estimates on various outcomes including at least three comparisons ( k ≥ 3) were extracted and transformed into a common effect size metric (Cohen’s d). If available, information on the certainty of evidence for these outcomes (GRADE assessment) was obtained.

          Results

          We included 49 meta-analyses with 261 distinct primary studies. Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies). There was a considerable overlap of the primary studies across the meta-analyses. Only nine meta-analyses were rated to have high methodological quality. Reported effect sizes comparing hypnosis against control conditions ranged from d = −0.04 to d = 2.72. Of the reported effects, 25.4% were medium ( d ≥ 0.5), and 28.8% were large ( d ≥ 0.8).

          Discussion

          Our findings underline the potential of hypnosis to positively impact various mental and somatic treatment outcomes, with the largest effects found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents. Future research should focus on the investigation of moderators of efficacy, on comparing hypnosis to established interventions, on the efficacy of hypnosis for children and adolescents, and on identifying patients who do not benefit from hypnosis.

          Clinical Trial Registration

          https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023395514, identifier CRD42023395514

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1887757/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/983726/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                08 January 2024
                2023
                : 14
                : 1330238
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Institute of Psychosocial Medicine, Psychotherapy and Psychooncology, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University , Jena, Germany
                [2] 2Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University , Waco, TX, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Ernil Hansen, University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany

                Reviewed by: Anil Batra, University Hospital Tuebingen, Germany; Madeline Stein, King’s College London, United Kingdom

                *Correspondence: Jenny Rosendahl, jenny.rosendahl@ 123456med.uni-jena.de
                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1330238
                10807512
                38268815
                c3a97bc1-e301-4cf2-a92a-f81372523aa7
                Copyright © 2024 Rosendahl, Alldredge and Haddenhorst.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 30 October 2023
                : 12 December 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 97, Pages: 20, Words: 12628
                Funding
                The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Publication fees for this article were provided by the open access publication fund of the Thuringian University and State Library (ThULB).
                Categories
                Psychology
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                Psychology for Clinical Settings

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                hypnosis,hypnotherapy,meta-analysis,randomized controlled trial,efficacy

                Comments

                Comment on this article