Study
A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research.
Bernie Garrett, Marliss Riou · Nursing open · 2021
Read the original paper ↗The short version
This 2021 rapid evidence assessment examined ten years of research on Therapeutic Touch (TT), one of the most widely practiced energy healing methods in nursing. TT practitioners hold their hands near — but not on — a patient's body, aiming to sense and rebalance the human biofield (a proposed energy field surrounding the body, related to concepts like qi and prana in traditional systems). Developed in 1972 within nursing, TT is still taught in nursing schools today, so two researchers set out to answer a direct question: how well does the recent evidence actually hold up? The reviewers screened seven research databases for every clinical TT study published between January 2009 and March 2020, following PRISMA systematic-review guidelines. From 3,290 records they identified 21 qualifying studies — 15 randomized controlled trials among them — covering 1,302 patients from premature infants to adults in their 90s, in settings from cancer care to post-surgical recovery. Each study was scored for evidence quality and risk of bias using standard appraisal tools. On the surface the results look remarkable: 18 of 21 studies reported benefits — less pain, less anxiety, better sleep, reduced nausea. But quality told a different story. Over 70% of the studies scored the minimum possible evidence rating, and only 4 of 21 had a low risk of bias — and those four stronger studies all found no difference between TT and control treatments (meaning the positive results came almost entirely from the weakest research). No study reported any adverse effects, so safety was not a concern. The review's picture of TT: it appears safe and many participants find it relaxing, but there is currently no high-quality evidence it works better than placebo or other relaxation approaches, and sessions can cost around $120/hour. The reviewers recommend that research first validate whether the biofield can be reliably detected and measured — foundational work that biofield science is actively pursuing — before more clinical trials are run.
Key findings
- Across 21 clinical studies with 1,302 patients, 18 reported benefits from Therapeutic Touch (a non-contact energy therapy), but only 4 were designed well enough to trust — and those found no effect.
- The review found no high-quality evidence that Therapeutic Touch outperforms placebo for pain, anxiety, sleep, or nausea.
- No side effects were reported in any study, so Therapeutic Touch appears safe.
- Better-designed studies consistently showed no difference — the positive claims came from small studies with high risk of bias.
- The reviewers recommend validating that the biofield can be detected and measured before running more clinical trials.
Common questions
What healing modality was studied?
Therapeutic Touch (TT), a non-contact energy healing therapy in which practitioners hold their hands near the body to rebalance a proposed human biofield.
What condition or health issue was addressed?
Pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement across surgical, cancer, neonatal intensive care, and geriatric settings.
What were the main findings?
18 of 21 studies (1,302 patients) reported positive outcomes, but over 70% scored the minimum evidence rating and only 4 had low risk of bias — and those four found no difference versus controls.
How strong is the evidence?
Weak overall. This was a PRISMA-guided rapid evidence assessment of 21 studies including 15 randomized controlled trials; the review concluded no high-quality evidence supports TT for any indication.
What are the clinical implications?
TT appears safe with no reported adverse events, but it is not an evidence-based intervention; reported benefits are plausibly placebo effects, and sessions cost about $120/hour versus free relaxation alternatives.
This summary and its findings were generated by AI from the published paper and may contain imperfections. It describes a study and is not medical advice — talk to a qualified clinician about your own health (terms). The original study is always the source of truth — read it above.