The effects of Reiki practice on breast cancer patients: a systematic review.

The short version

This systematic review of four studies and 339 participants explored whether Reiki, a hands-on or hands-near practice described as channeling life energy, eases symptoms in people with breast cancer, mainly during chemotherapy. Breast cancer and its treatments bring pain, fatigue, poor sleep, anxiety and stress, which is why many patients look to complementary care alongside standard treatment. The authors framed the results with a nursing theory by Martha E. Rogers, which describes a person as an energy field in constant exchange with the surroundings and links health to balance within that field. They stress that this theory serves as an interpretive lens, not proof of how Reiki works. Two researchers searched five databases plus gray literature up to May 2026 for experimental and quasi-experimental studies of Reiki in breast cancer, in English or Turkish, and rated quality with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools (scores of 5 to 9 out of 10). The four included studies came from the United States, Turkey and India, with 36 to 189 participants each. Reiki sessions lasted 20 to 42 minutes, usually during chemotherapy sessions, and were compared with usual care, sham Reiki (a mimic without real Reiki), companion support or nothing. Reiki was linked to lower fatigue, less symptom burden and better well-being in some studies. In the Turkish study, fatigue scores fell from 5.29 to 3.42 with Reiki while control scores rose from 7.03 to 8.40. In the largest trial (189 people, 63 per group), comfort and well-being were higher with Reiki than usual care (p = 0.0197 and p = 0.0051), yet sham Reiki did equally well (real versus sham p = 0.8435 and 0.7453), pointing to attention, relaxation and expectation as possible contributors. One US study found no significant change in symptom distress, and companion support outperformed Reiki on several mood measures. Mood, vitality, relaxation and mental comfort also improved in several studies, and three studies reported better quality of life. No serious Reiki-related adverse effects were reported in the included studies. The authors conclude that the evidence is too limited for firm conclusions about Reiki's specific effectiveness or mechanism. Limitations include few studies, small samples, varied protocols, limited blinding, an aura-scan study without conventional statistics, and English and Turkish language limits. The sham-controlled result means non-specific therapeutic factors cannot be separated from Reiki itself, and the authors describe Reiki as feasible and generally well tolerated in the included studies. They call for larger, blinded randomized trials with standardized protocols, validated outcome measures and longer follow-up.

Key findings

• A systematic review of four studies (339 people with breast cancer, mostly receiving chemotherapy) examined Reiki, a hands-on or hands-near energy practice, and no pooled analysis was done because the studies differed in design and measures.
• A Turkish study reported fatigue scores falling from 5.29 to 3.42 across three measurements with Reiki while control scores rose from 7.03 to 8.40, and other studies reported better comfort, mood, vitality and well-being.
• In the largest trial (189 people), comfort and well-being were higher with real Reiki than usual care (p = 0.0197 and p = 0.0051), but sham Reiki (a mimic without real Reiki) did just as well (real versus sham p = 0.8435 and 0.7453), so attention, relaxation and expectation may explain part of the benefit.
• The review reports no serious Reiki-related adverse effects in the included studies, while the authors state that only four small, varied studies are available and that firm conclusions are not possible.

Common questions