TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sá, Rick
AU  - Quitério, Robison José
AU  - Pignataro Neto, Godofredo
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/06/02
TI  - Efficacy of Biofield Therapies in Alleviating Pain and Reducing Symptoms Associated with Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JO  - OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine
SP  - 021
VL  - 11
IS  - 02
AB  - Biofield therapies (BTs) including Reiki, Therapeutic Touch (TT), Healing Touch (HT), and External Qigong Treatment (EQT) are non-pharmacological interventions proposed to modulate putative energy fields surrounding the human body. Despite growing clinical interest, the evidence base remains methodologically heterogeneous. This study aimed to provide a rigorous synthesis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the efficacy of BTs for pain reduction and for the alleviation of symptoms associated with mental disorders (SAMD), including anxiety, depression, stress, and aggressiveness. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024618260). RCTs published between 2003 and 2023 were identified in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges’ g under an inverse-variance weighting framework, and random-effects models were fitted using the REML estimator (metafor, R v4.3.2). A three-level multilevel model was applied to the SAMD group to account for nested outcomes. Influence diagnostics and pre-specified sensitivity models were used to address statistically influential observations. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots, Egger’s test, and trim-and-fill. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Twenty-eight RCTs were included (Pain: k = 14, N = 918; SAMD: k = 22, N = 1,581). Risk of bias was low in 10.7% of trials, of some concern in 64.3%, and high in 25.0%. For the Pain group, the primary model yielded g = 0.72 (95% CI: 0.27-1.16; I2 = 88.2%); the sensitivity model, excluding two influential studies, yielded g = 0.27 (95% CI: 0.10-0.44; I2 = 9.8%). For the SAMD group, primary and sensitivity estimates were g = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.37-0.94; I2 = 82.6%) and g = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26-0.57; I2 = 34.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed consistent small-to-moderate effects for anxiety (g = 0.32; I2 = 13.4%) and depression (g = 0.39; I2 = 0.0%), whereas stress showed a larger but less stable estimate (g = 0.68; I2 = 73.1%). Session duration was the only moderator with a negative trend, though with limited explanatory power (pseudo-R2 < 12%). Funnel plot asymmetry in sensitivity models suggested small-study effects, with trim-and-fill estimates of g = 0.16 (Pain) and g = 0.27 (SAMD). Biofield therapies are associated with statistically significant but small effects on pain (g = 0.27) and SAMD (g = 0.42) in methodologically robust models. Evidence is most consistent for anxiety and depression. The findings support BTs as potential complementary adjuncts in integrative care, though clinical impact is modest and context-dependent. Future trials should prioritize adequate sample sizes, active or sham controls, standardized outcomes, and pre-registered protocols.
SN  - 2573-4393
UR  - https://doi.org/10.21926/obm.icm.2602021
DO  - 10.21926/obm.icm.2602021
ID  - Sá2026
ER  -