Chronic Pain

Tatiana Leite Müller et al. (2026) · International journal of biometeorology

This systematic review of nine studies with 465 adults looked at climatotherapy, the therapeutic use of climate and natural settings, for musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia and ankylosing spondylitis. The settings were the Dead Sea (very salty water, low humidity, distinctive solar radiation and air pressure about 5% above sea level) and coastal sites using thalassotherapy, which means bathing and exercising in seawater, sometimes with marine mud, sun exposure and sea air. Because these programs vary widely, the authors wanted to gather what trials say about pain, physical function, quality of life and safety. The reviewers searched three databases through September 2025 and included eight randomized trials and one non-randomized study from 1995 to 2011, mostly in Israel. Participants were aged 18 to 65 and stayed at a spa or coast for 10 days up to 12 weeks. Comparison groups used freshwater pools, usual care, pool exercise or the same program in Norway. Pain was usually rated on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale, and quality of life was measured with questionnaires such as the SF-36. Most studies reported short-term improvements in pain, stiffness, function and quality of life, mainly within groups. Only two studies could be pooled for pain, giving an inconclusive overall result (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -5.47 to 4.53; an interval too wide to show benefit or no benefit). Split by condition, osteoarthritis showed a large effect (SMD -1.01, meaning pain fell by roughly one standard deviation more than with comparison) while fibromyalgia showed a small non-significant one (SMD -0.18, p = 0.158). In fibromyalgia, single-study estimates showed fewer tender points (SMD -0.50, p = 0.0047) and better physical quality of life (SF-36 physical score 0.36, p = 0.0391), but mood scores (p = 0.5968) and overall fibromyalgia impact (p = 0.0612) did not change significantly. No serious adverse events were reported, though only one study recorded adverse events explicitly. The evidence has important limits: trials were small and published between 1995 and 2011, participants and therapists could not be blinded, safety was inconsistently recorded, and several programs combined many components, so the effect of the climate itself is hard to separate. Only one trial analyzed all participants as randomized, and the pooled estimate rests on two studies. Certainty was judged low. The authors suggest climatotherapy may be a complementary option, particularly for osteoarthritis, and call for multicenter randomized trials with standard outcome sets and systematic safety reporting.

Jonathan Greenberg et al. (2025) · JAMA network open

This feasibility randomized clinical trial with 92 sedentary adults experiencing chronic musculoskeletal pain explored whether a mind-body walking program could be delivered successfully across three geographically and racially diverse U.S. academic medical centers, compared with a health education program. The mind-body walking program combined quota-based pacing — increasing step-count goals gradually based on what participants could sustain, rather than tying goals to whether pain was present — with mind-body skills such as breathing exercises and body scans, and cognitive skills aimed at identifying and reframing unhelpful pain-related thoughts. The trial measured physical function in three complementary ways (self-reported, performance-based, and step-count-based), addressing a gap identified in pain-trial reporting guidelines. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the 10-week, 60-minute weekly group mind-body walking program (47 participants) or a matched health-education control (45 participants), recruited between April 2023 and January 2024. The mind-body group received a Fitbit Inspire 3 tracker with individualized weekly step goals. Physical function was measured with the 6-Minute Walk Test, a wrist-worn accelerometer worn for one week, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. Pain, mood, and psychological mechanisms — pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, adaptive coping, and mindfulness — were measured with validated questionnaires before and after the program. Both programs met most feasibility benchmarks, including attendance (95.7% mind-body walking vs 82.2% health education), delivery fidelity, and participant retention (93.6% vs 86.7%). Racial and ethnic diversity exceeded its target (54.3% of participants from minority groups, against a 38% benchmark), though overall recruitment fell short (69.7% of eligible patients enrolled, against an 80% target). Within the mind-body walking group, participants showed large pre-to-post improvements in walking distance (48.6 meters over six minutes, P<.001), self-reported physical function (P<.001), and pain catastrophizing (P<.001), plus medium improvements in pain intensity (P=.002) and fear of movement (P<.001), and smaller but significant improvements in adaptive coping and mindfulness (both P<.05). The health education group improved only on walking distance and pain intensity. Because the trial was not statistically powered to compare the two programs against each other, these within-group changes describe what happened in each arm rather than a demonstrated advantage of one program over the other. The trial establishes that a mind-body walking program can be delivered with strong attendance and participant satisfaction across diverse academic medical centers, supporting a future, fully powered efficacy trial. The findings do not establish that the mind-body walking program produces greater benefit than health education, since the study was designed to test feasibility rather than comparative outcomes. The gap between eligible and enrolled participants (69.7% versus an 80% target) points to recruitment timing as an area for refinement in future trial designs.

Daniel C Cherkin et al. · JAMA

This randomized clinical trial with 342 adults explored whether an eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program — training in meditation, body awareness, and yoga — could ease chronic low back pain as effectively as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a well-established talk-therapy approach that helps people change pain-related thoughts and behaviors. Both interventions govern how the nervous system processes and responds to persistent pain signals, but through different mechanisms: MBSR through non-judgmental present-moment awareness, CBT through restructuring unhelpful thought patterns. Participants had lived with low back pain for an average of over seven years. Adults aged 20 to 70 (mean 49, two-thirds women) with pain lasting at least three months were randomly assigned to MBSR, CBT, or usual care. Both active groups met weekly for eight two-hour sessions — MBSR practiced body scans, sitting and walking meditation, and gentle yoga, while CBT focused on identifying unhelpful thoughts, relaxation training, and pacing daily activities. Improvement was measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire (a 23-item scale of pain-related function) and a 0-10 pain-bothersomeness rating, checked by blinded interviewers at 8, 26, and 52 weeks. At the six-month mark, 61% of the MBSR group and 58% of the CBT group showed clinically meaningful improvement in function, compared with 44% of the usual-care group (a statistically significant difference, p=0.04, meaning the pattern was unlikely to occur by chance). Pain bothersomeness improved meaningfully for 44% of MBSR participants and 45% of CBT participants, versus 27% on usual care (p=0.01). MBSR was about 1.4 times more likely than usual care to produce meaningful functional improvement, and both active treatments held their advantage a full year later. On mood measures, CBT edged out MBSR at some points, though both beat usual care through six months. Roughly 3 in 10 MBSR participants and 1 in 10 CBT participants reported a temporary increase in discomfort — most often stiffness or soreness from yoga or relaxation exercises — with no serious safety concerns in either group. The trial suggests MBSR works about as well as CBT for chronic low back pain, giving people a second evidence-based option beyond conventional pain therapies. Only about half of participants attended six or more of the eight sessions, hinting the benefits may not require full completion. The study was conducted at a single US healthcare system among a fairly well-educated population, so how the findings translate to other settings, or to CBT delivered one-on-one rather than in groups, is not yet known. The authors call for further work on cost-effectiveness and long-term durability beyond one year.

Filip Gedin et al. (2025) · BMC musculoskeletal disorders

This Swedish trial asked whether a chiropractor, a physiotherapist, or advice to stay active works best for low back pain lasting months — and the honest answer is that it could not tell the three apart. Eighty-eight people at ten primary care clinics around Stockholm were randomly assigned to one of four things: advice only, physiotherapy, chiropractic care, or both together. Six months later, everyone was better. Disability scores dropped in every group — most in the chiropractic group, least in the physiotherapy group — but the gaps between groups were well within what chance alone would produce. Pain scores and quality of life told the same story: improvement everywhere, no clear winner. Where the groups did differ was cost. The advice-only group ended up costing the health system about three times more than the others — around SEK 11,000 per person versus roughly SEK 3,000 — mostly because those patients went on to see doctors more, and one of them had spine surgery. Getting hands-on treatment early appeared to head off more expensive care later, though with numbers this small a single surgery moves the whole average. Combining chiropractic care with physiotherapy came out best on the economics: slightly more quality-adjusted life years for slightly less money. But "slightly" is doing a lot of work — the difference across all four groups was eight thousandths of a QALY, which is roughly three days of perfect health. The researchers are unusually candid about the limits. They wanted far more participants than they got, nearly half the people dropped out before six months, and the four groups were not well matched at the start. They present this as a lesson for whoever runs the definitive trial next, not as a result to act on. What it does support, gently: for chronic low back pain, staying active matters, and both chiropractic care and physiotherapy are reasonable, comparably effective options — with some signal that getting treatment rather than advice alone may save money downstream.

Zhiyong Long et al. (2023) · Frontiers in immunology

Whether the plant compounds often discussed for rheumatoid arthritis — turmeric, green tea, pomegranate, garlic — actually do anything is the question this meta-analysis set out to answer. This review gathered every randomized trial it could find on the question: 47 trials, nearly 3,900 people, fifteen different plant polyphenols, from Iran, China, Korea, Egypt, Japan, Brazil, India and the United States. The clearest picture came from two of them. The first is total glucosides of paeony, an extract of Chinese peony root that is a licensed prescription medicine in China. Twenty-three trials tested it — always added to standard RA drugs like methotrexate, never instead of them. Disease activity scores came down, and so did CRP, ESR and rheumatoid factor, the blood markers doctors track. The most interesting result: people taking it reported *fewer* side effects than people on the standard drugs alone. That fits how it is used clinically — it appears to soften the toll the conventional drugs take on the liver and stomach. The second is curcumin, the yellow compound in turmeric. Five trials, and the same direction: lower disease activity, lower inflammatory markers, no extra side effects. Green tea polyphenols looked promising across two trials. Saffron did not show a clear effect. Everything else — pomegranate, garlic, resveratrol, sesame, cinnamon, ginger, kudzu, cranberry, olive oil, quercetin — rests on one or two small trials apiece, which is encouraging but not yet evidence that bears weight. The honest caveat, which the authors state plainly themselves: the trials disagreed with each other a great deal, most were small, and when the researchers sliced the data by dose and duration some of the headline benefits faded. Nearly all of these were add-on studies. Nobody tested a polyphenol against methotrexate, so the evidence says nothing about replacing a prescribed medication. What it does support is turmeric and peony extract as the best-evidenced candidates, studied as additions to existing treatment rather than replacements for it.

Fatma Shewail et al. (2023) · BMC musculoskeletal disorders

This randomized trial with 33 college students compared two popular hands-on treatments for chronic neck pain: classic myofascial release, where a therapist applies sustained manual pressure into the connective tissue, and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), where the same work is done with smooth, contoured metal or plastic tools. The students, averaging 21 years old, had all developed persistent mechanical neck pain while studying remotely during COVID-19 restrictions — the classic screen-hunched population. Each participant received eight sessions over four weeks targeting the upper trapezius and levator scapulae — the muscles running from neck to shoulder blade that carry most desk-posture strain. Researchers measured pain on a visual analog scale, day-to-day function with the Neck Disability Index, and pressure pain threshold with an algometer, an instrument that quantifies how much pressure the tissue tolerates before hurting. Both groups got better on all three measures — but neither treatment beat the other. The between-group comparison showed no statistically significant difference in pain, function, or pressure threshold (p>0.05). The researchers were refreshingly honest about the catch: with no untreated control group, the improvements both groups experienced cannot be confidently credited to the treatments rather than natural recovery or the simple passage of four weeks. They grade their own evidence at level 2b — a candor worth noting, since many small trials in this space claim more than their design supports, and this one deliberately does not. For anyone weighing these therapies, the takeaway is practical: IASTM's specialized tools showed no advantage over a skilled therapist's hands for chronic mechanical neck pain, so choose based on practitioner expertise, comfort, and cost rather than technique hype. And for the field, this study marks a gap worth filling — a three-arm trial adding a control group would answer whether either technique beats watchful waiting, which this design honestly could not.

Yolanda Nadal-Nicolás et al. (2020) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This randomized controlled trial with 24 women asked whether hands-on massage therapy can move the needle on fibromyalgia — the chronic condition that combines widespread muscle pain with fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, and mood struggles. Researchers in Alicante, Spain recruited women aged 47 to 59 with rheumatologist-confirmed fibromyalgia affecting the neck and upper back, then randomized them to real treatment or a convincing placebo. The real treatment was manual therapy with moderate finger pressure on the back of the neck and upper back — fifteen minutes, twice a week, for four weeks, growing gradually firmer as each patient tolerated. The placebo was clever: an ultrasound machine applied to the same area for the same time, but switched off and used without gel, so participants experienced an equally plausible clinical ritual. Pain, fatigue, sleep, anxiety, and mood were measured before and after the month of treatment. Pain responded decisively. The manual therapy group's pain scores dropped by 4.2 points from baseline (p<0.001 — a large within-group effect of 2.07), and after treatment they sat 2.9 points below the placebo group (p=0.044, a moderate between-group effect of 0.59). Everything else stayed flat: fatigue, sleep quality, anxiety, and mood showed no significant improvement over placebo. An interesting side note - fatigue and poor sleep moved together (R=0.411), as did pain and anger-hostility scores (R=0.436), hinting at how fibromyalgia symptoms interlock. For women with fibromyalgia, this trial offers a practical, specific prescription: gentle-to-moderate pressure massage on the neck and upper back, twice weekly, genuinely reduces pain beyond the placebo effect — but on this evidence it should be expected to help pain, not the full fibromyalgia symptom cluster. The trial was small (24 analyzed), dropout hit the placebo arm harder, and all participants were women from one region, so larger trials are needed before firmer conclusions.

YuJuan Zhang et al. (2020) · Current rheumatology reports

This review examined five years of research — 16 review articles and 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2016 and 2020 — to answer a question millions of people ask: does acupuncture actually work for chronic musculoskeletal pain? That umbrella covers osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain, which together form the leading cause of disability worldwide. About three million American adults already use acupuncture yearly, most of them for these very conditions. The reviewers, writing in Current Rheumatology Reports, held studies to clear standards: randomized trials with at least 20 adults, pain as a measured primary outcome, and a genuine control group — sham needling, waiting list, active therapy, or routine care. They excluded dry needling and moxibustion so the conclusions would apply specifically to classical acupuncture at standard points. The answer turned out to be condition-specific, and refreshingly honest. Knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain earned the strongest support: short-term pain relief is real, and the authors call acupuncture a safe and reasonable referral option for both — a stance Medicare has since echoed by covering acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Fibromyalgia sits in the middle: acupuncture may help, but the evidence is thinner. Hip osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis land on the other side: the available evidence does not support acupuncture for either, a negative finding stated without hedging. Safety was favorable across the board. For joint or back pain, this review is essentially a map of where the evidence for acupuncture stands. It is a narrative synthesis rather than a statistical meta-analysis, so it pools no numbers of its own, and its authors close with the field''s standing caveat: the short-term benefits reported across these trials still need confirmation in larger, more rigorous studies, especially for the conditions in the middle ground.

He Chen et al. (2024) · Current pain and headache reports

Does acupuncture keep helping knee osteoarthritis after the needles stop? A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in Current Pain and Headache Reports pooled 10 randomized controlled trials with 3,221 participants to answer exactly that, and found benefits lasting roughly 3 to 6 months after the final session. The durability depended on the comparison. Against sham acupuncture, real acupuncture kept function measurably better for 4.5 months after treatment ended, and overall pain stayed lower through 4.5 months as well. Against usual care, both pain relief and functional improvement remained large enough to matter clinically for 5 months. One trial comparing dry needling with the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac found relief persisting 6 months after treatment ended. Not every comparison favored acupuncture. When it was added on top of exercise-based physical therapy, it added nothing measurable for up to 11 months — exercise appears to occupy much of the same therapeutic ground. And two no-treatment-controlled trials disagreed, one showing 3 months of persistence and the other showing benefits only at end of treatment. Safety was consistently good across trials, with no significant excess of adverse events. For the estimated one in five adults over 40 living with knee osteoarthritis, the practical takeaway is that a 4-to-12-week course of acupuncture (typically 1–3 sessions weekly) can deliver relief that outlasts treatment by months — something NSAIDs and steroid injections generally cannot claim. It works best as its own treatment or alongside routine care, not stacked on structured exercise therapy, and results should be weighed knowing each individual comparison rested on relatively few trials.

Lynn L DeBar et al. (2025) · JAMA network open

This randomized trial with 800 participants asked a question no large study had answered: does acupuncture help adults 65 and older with chronic low back pain? Acupuncture — the Traditional Chinese Medicine practice of inserting fine needles at specific points — is already guideline-recommended for back pain in general adults, but older adults face the highest risks from pain medications and had never had a dedicated large trial. The results were designed to inform Medicare coverage. Participants (average age 74, and 41% over 75) were randomized to three groups: standard acupuncture (8–15 sessions over 12 weeks), enhanced acupuncture (the same plus 4–6 maintenance sessions), or usual medical care alone. Real-world community acupuncturists — more than 50 of them — tailored needling to each patient, and disability was measured with the Roland-Morris questionnaire, a standard count of daily activities limited by back pain. At six months, both acupuncture groups functioned meaningfully better than usual care. The share of people achieving at least 30% improvement — the accepted bar for a clinically meaningful change — was 43.8% with enhanced acupuncture and 39.1% with standard, versus 29.4% with usual care alone (a relative 49% and 33% higher chance of meaningful improvement). Benefits held at twelve months. Pain intensity and anxiety also improved, and maintenance sessions added a modest edge on pain. Safety was excellent: serious adverse events were rare, equal across groups, and less than 1% were possibly related to acupuncture. For older adults weighing pain options, this is the strongest evidence yet: acupuncture delivered by community practitioners produced lasting improvement with almost no risk — in a population where the usual alternatives (opioids, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids) carry their highest dangers. The authors suggest it may deserve first-line status for this age group.

Jun J Mao et al. (2021) · JAMA oncology

This randomized clinical trial with 360 cancer survivors asked a practical question: for people who finished cancer treatment but still live with chronic musculoskeletal pain, does acupuncture work better than usual care — and which kind of acupuncture is better? The PEACE trial, run across six sites in New York and New Jersey and published in JAMA Oncology, compared electroacupuncture (electrical stimulation through needles placed in the body) with auricular acupuncture (needles placed at standardized points on the ear). Participants — mean age 62, about 70% women — had a prior cancer diagnosis, no current disease, and pain of at least three months. They were randomized to ten weekly sessions of electroacupuncture (145 people), ear acupuncture (143), or usual care (72), with pain scored on the Brief Pain Inventory, a 0-to-10 scale. Electroacupuncture points were tailored to where each person hurt, while ear acupuncture used the same standardized points for everyone — a deliberately pragmatic design reflecting how each style is really practiced. Nearly everyone (94.4%) completed the twelve-week assessment, unusually high retention for a pain trial in this population. Both acupuncture styles delivered real relief. Electroacupuncture reduced pain by 1.9 points more than usual care (97.5% CI 1.4–2.4, p<0.001 — roughly a one-third drop from the average starting pain of 5.2), and auricular acupuncture by 1.6 points more (97.5% CI 1.0–2.1, p<0.001). But ear acupuncture failed to prove itself as good as electroacupuncture, and it was harder to tolerate: 10.5% of ear-acupuncture patients stopped because of side effects — mostly ear discomfort — versus just 0.7% with electroacupuncture. For cancer survivors seeking alternatives to long-term pain medication, this trial makes electroacupuncture the stronger evidence-backed choice, with ear acupuncture as a workable fallback when body needling isn't practical. The design was pragmatic and the analysis blinded, though there was no sham-needle arm, so expectation effects can't be fully separated — and follow-up ended at 24 weeks, leaving durability an open question.

Jinglan Mu et al. (2020) · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Does acupuncture help chronic low back pain? A Cochrane systematic review — the reference standard for evidence synthesis in medicine — pooled 33 randomized controlled trials with 8,270 adults whose low back pain had lasted more than three months without an identifiable cause, and the answer depends entirely on what acupuncture is compared against. The trials, conducted across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, compared real acupuncture with three alternatives: sham needling (needles placed superficially or away from true acupuncture points), no treatment at all, and usual medical care such as medication and physiotherapy. Pain was measured on 0–100 scales, function with validated back-specific questionnaires like the Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire, and the review graded how trustworthy each pooled result was using the GRADE framework. Against no treatment, acupuncture delivered a 20-point pain reduction (95% CI 16–25 — well past the roughly 15 points patients can actually feel) along with clear functional improvement. Against usual care, pain improved by about 10 points and physical quality of life rose measurably (4.2 points on the SF-12), though mental well-being did not change. Against sham needling, however, the advantage shrank to 9 points — a real but sub-clinical difference — and back function did not separate at all. Side effects were minor and no more frequent than with sham: needle-site pain, bruising, occasional bleeding, with no serious harms attributed to treatment. For the many people living with chronic low back pain, this review supports acupuncture as genuinely better than doing nothing and a reasonable, safe addition to routine care — while being honest that much of the measured benefit may ride on components shared with sham treatment, such as expectation, focused attention, and the treatment ritual itself. Trial quality was mixed, seven German studies contributed two-thirds of all participants, and the authors conclude the choice should ultimately weigh availability, cost, and personal preference.

Andrew J Vickers et al. (2017) · The journal of pain

This meta-analysis pooled the raw, patient-by-patient data of 20,827 people from 39 rigorously screened randomized trials — the largest and most careful analysis of acupuncture for chronic pain ever conducted. Acupuncture is the Traditional Chinese Medicine practice of inserting fine needles at specific body points; classical theory describes it as regulating qi (the body's vital functional energy) flowing through meridians (the mapped channels of that flow), while researchers here tested it purely on outcomes. Only trials with airtight randomization were included, covering four conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, and shoulder pain. The team obtained original data from trial authors and re-analyzed everything centrally — a gold-standard approach that removes many shortcuts ordinary meta-analyses must take. Acupuncture beat both comparison types for every condition (p < .001 — highly unlikely due to chance). Against no-acupuncture care the effect was about 0.5 standard deviations — in plain terms, starting from pain of 60/100, patients ended near 30 with acupuncture versus 43 without, and half of acupuncture patients achieved 50% pain reduction versus 30% of controls. Against sham (fake) acupuncture the margin was smaller (≈0.2 SD), meaning needle placement is only part of the benefit — but sham could not explain it all. Benefits lasted, fading only about 15% by one year. Neck and shoulder pain responded best (effect sizes 0.83 and 0.57 versus sham), and more sessions produced more relief (p = 0.001). Notably, the pooled effect matches or beats common anti-inflammatory drugs, whose effect sizes run below 0.23 for the same conditions. The authors' bottom line, unchanged since: referring a chronic pain patient for a course of acupuncture is a reasonable clinical option — with real, persistent, not-just-placebo benefit and an excellent safety profile.

Zeng L et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of curcumin and Curcuma longa extract across five types of arthritis: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and gout/hyperuricemia. Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials involving 2,396 participants were included, drawn from 11 countries. For RA (6 RCTs), curcumin significantly reduced disease activity (DAS28), ESR, CRP, and rheumatoid factor compared to controls. For OA (20 RCTs), curcumin reduced pain (VAS and WOMAC-pain), improved physical function, and decreased stiffness compared to placebo. Notably, curcumin showed comparable efficacy to NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac) with significantly fewer adverse events. For AS, a single RCT of nanocurcumin showed increased regulatory T cells and decreased IL-6. Two JIA trials found curcumin improved disease activity scores in children. Doses ranged from 120 to 1,500 mg daily for 4-36 weeks. The mechanisms of action include inhibition of NF-kB signaling, COX-2 suppression, NLRP3 inflammasome inhibition, and modulation of the RANK/RANKL/OPG system. Safety was favorable across all studies, with no serious adverse events attributed to curcumin. However, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, high heterogeneity, and potential industry funding bias.

Tiffany J Barsotti et al. (2023) · Explore (New York, N.Y.)

This exploratory study investigates the effects of encountering a sacred object, specifically the Sri Yantra / Durga Stone, on human biofield responses. The significance of this research lies in its potential to bridge traditional healing practices with modern scientific understanding, particularly in the context of enhancing well-being through sacred objects. The study aims to explore how such encounters influence emotional and physical health, addressing a gap in existing literature regarding the biofield and sacred spaces. The study employed a pre-post single group design with a sample size of 17 participants, aged 38 to 79, consisting of 12 women and 5 men, all of whom provided informed consent. Participants engaged with the sacred object by placing their hand on the Sri Yantra / Durga Stone for up to 3 minutes, optionally reciting a mantra. Outcomes were measured using a Bio-Well device, which assessed emotional pressure, energy levels, and readings from various organ systems before and after the encounter. The intervention was conducted at the Sri Narayani Golden Temple in Vellore, India, with no specific treatment provided beyond the encounter itself. Results indicated a significant increase in the overall Bio-Well energy state, with baseline levels of 53.78 significantly lower than pre-exposure levels of 60.54 (p = 0.005) and post-exposure levels of 66.78 (p < 0.001). Significant changes were also observed in cardiovascular (F(2,32) = 11.441, p < 0.001) and endocrine system assessments (F(2,32) = 10.34, p = 0.001). However, emotional pressure and left/right symmetry measures did not show significant changes (p = 0.017 and p = 0.156, respectively). Participants reported enhanced feelings of energy, emotional balance, and a sense of peace, with no adverse events noted during the study. The findings suggest that exposure to sacred objects may enhance emotional and physical well-being, indicating potential therapeutic applications in clinical settings. However, the study's limitations include the absence of a control group and the short duration of exposure, which may affect the validity and generalizability of the results. Practitioners may consider incorporating similar interventions into therapeutic practices to explore their benefits further. Future research should include control conditions and longer engagement times with sacred objects to better assess their effects on the human biofield and overall health.

Kiyoshi Suzuki et al. (2020) · Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)

This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of Okada Purifying Therapy (OPT), a biofield therapy, for symptom relief across diverse ethnicities and cultures. The research is significant as it addresses the unclear scientific understanding of biofield therapies and their potential benefits in improving physical and psychological well-being. The findings indicate that a majority of participants reported symptom improvement, particularly in Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries, while confirming the therapy's safety with low exacerbation rates. The study employed a cross-sectional design, involving 11,303 participants aged 16 and older from 14 countries, with no specific exclusion criteria. Participants received a single session of OPT, which lasted 30 minutes or longer, administered by certified practitioners. Outcomes were measured using self-reported questionnaires, including a demographic questionnaire, a 5-point Likert-type scale for symptom severity, and the MQL-10 questionnaire for quality of life assessment, all conducted before and after the OPT session. Results showed that 77.5% of participants reported overall symptom improvement (p < 0.0083), with the highest improvement rates observed in Chile/Peru (95.0%) and the lowest in Japan (72.3%). Secondary outcomes indicated that 75.6% reported improvement in physical pain, 78.4% in anxiety/depression, and 73.8% in dizziness/palpitation, all statistically significant (p < 0.0083). Non-significant findings included gender differences in symptom improvement (males 66.6% vs. females 78.3%, p = 0.051) and no significant age impact (p = 0.40). Adverse events were minimal, with 228 participants experiencing symptom exacerbation, none requiring emergency treatment. The authors suggest OPT may have a role as a noninvasive approach, particularly in culturally diverse settings. The authors note that cultural background appears to influence outcomes. Key limitations include the use of convenience sampling, potential biases in self-reported data, and the absence of a control group. Future research should aim to validate these findings with more rigorous methodologies and explore the underlying mechanisms of OPT's effectiveness.

Pratyusha Veldhi et al. (2025) · Plants (Basel, Switzerland)

This 2023 ethnobotanical review investigated the medicinal plants native to Pike County, Eastern Kentucky, and their pharmacological benefits. The study combined a local survey with a literature review to validate the medicinal properties of 14 identified plants: Pawpaw (Asimina triloba), Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), Pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata), Chicory (Cichorium intybus), Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Ghost Pipe (Monotropa uniflora), Princess Tree (Paulownia tomentosa), American Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Purslane (Portulaca oleracea), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Porcelain (Hibiscus sabdariffa), Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra), Mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). The survey identified various traditional uses for these plants, including nutritional benefits, insect repellent properties, and applications for conditions such as rheumatism, inflammation, and infections. For instance, Pawpaw is traditionally consumed for its nutritional value and has shown potential in modern research for anticancer and antimicrobial activities, with studies indicating its extracts inhibit the HIF-1 transcription factor, which is involved in tumor growth. Beautyberry has been noted for its insect-repelling properties and has demonstrated efficacy against MRSA infections in research settings. Pipsissewa has been traditionally used for rheumatism and has shown antifungal and anticancer properties in scientific studies. Chicory serves as a coffee substitute and has hepatoprotective and antidiabetic effects, while Boneset is recognized for its immune-boosting and anti-inflammatory properties. The findings highlight the rich ethnobotanical knowledge of the local population and the pharmacological potential of these plants. However, this review is limited by the small sample size of survey participants (n=4) and the reliance on self-reported data, which may introduce bias. Further research with larger, more diverse populations is needed to validate these findings and explore the therapeutic applications of these plants more comprehensively.

Maxime Billot et al. (2021) · Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)

This brief opinion piece asked a practical pandemic-era question: when people with chronic pain cannot reach their usual care, could self-administered Reiki help fill the gap? Reiki is an energy healing practice in which a practitioner — or in this case, the person themselves — places hands on or near the body with the intention of supporting the body's own balance. The authors, pain researchers in France, note two things at once. First, practitioner-given Reiki has shown promising results in studies for reducing pain and psychological distress and improving quality of life. Second, the self-administered version has not been properly tested, and they say so plainly: self-Reiki "needs evidence-based medicine to be disseminated." There is no experiment here — no participants, no measurements, no statistics. The paper is a reasoned argument that self-Reiki is worth studying because it is free once learned, always available, requires no travel or contact, and would run alongside conventional pain treatment rather than replacing it. The takeaway is honest and small: a hypothesis worth testing, not a treatment recommendation. The sensible reading of this commentary is that self-Reiki is a low-risk practice some people with chronic pain report as helpful, while the clinical trials that would prove or disprove its benefit still need to be run.

Natalie L Dyer et al. (2023) · Global advances in integrative medicine and health

This pilot trial evaluated a remote Reiki program aimed at improving health-related quality of life for frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is significant as it addresses the urgent mental health challenges faced by healthcare professionals due to increased stress and anxiety during this crisis. The study employed a pragmatic within-subjects trial design, involving frontline healthcare professionals from the NHS in the UK, although the specific sample size was not calculated. Participants received distance Reiki sessions for 20 minutes each day over four consecutive days, facilitated by trained practitioners. Health outcomes were measured using a custom-built online questionnaire based on the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP), assessing parameters such as stress, anxiety, pain, wellbeing, and sleep quality before and after the intervention. Results indicated significant improvements in primary outcomes, with stress decreasing from a median of 4.0 pre-intervention to 2.0 post-intervention (P < .001, r = .634), and anxiety also reducing from 4.0 to 2.0 (P < .001, r = .698). Secondary outcomes showed similar trends, with pain decreasing from 2.0 to 1.0 (P < .001, r = .630), wellbeing improving from 4.0 to 2.0 (P < .001, r = .578), and sleep quality improving from 4.0 to 3.0 (P = .019, r = .371). Qualitative feedback from participants highlighted experiences of improved sleep and reduced stress, with no adverse events reported during the study. The findings suggest that distance Reiki could be a valuable intervention for enhancing the health-related quality of life among healthcare workers, particularly during stressful periods like the COVID-19 pandemic. The study's limitations include a predominantly female sample and the absence of gender analysis, indicating the need for further research to confirm these results across diverse populations. The authors propose distance Reiki as a candidate component of wellness programs for healthcare professionals, and call for studies of the biological mechanisms underlying Reiki's effects and randomized controlled trials of its long-term efficacy.

Vinu Vijayakumar et al. (2024) · F1000Research

This preliminary study aimed to investigate the duration of biofield experiences and the relationship between learning styles and these sensations. Using a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 88 participants, the study found significant differences in biofield sensations between experimental and sham groups, with specific average times recorded for experiencing various sensations. The findings underscore the effectiveness of Master Choa Kok Sui's hand sensitization technique in eliciting biofield sensations. The study was a randomized controlled trial involving 84 healthy pre-service teachers aged 18-24, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group practicing Master Choa Kok Sui's hand sensitization or a sham group performing similar but altered activities. The intervention included abdominal breathing, connecting the tongue to the palate, pressing the palms, and positioning palms facing each other while moving them slightly. Outcomes were measured using self-administered questionnaires, including the Learning Styles Questionnaire, Six Letter Cancellation Test, Ruler Drop Test, and Sensation of Hands Timing Questionnaire, assessing learning preferences, attention, reaction time, and experiences of sensations. The total duration of the practice was approximately 6 minutes, with three sessions of 120 seconds each. The primary outcome revealed that 81.81% of the experimental group reported magnetic sensations compared to 15.91% in the sham group (χ² = 38.247, p ≤ .001). Secondary outcomes indicated that 47.72% of the experimental group experienced physical sensations of energy versus 13.6% in the sham group (χ² = 12.02, p ≤ .001), while 93.18% of the sham group reported pain sensations compared to 9.09% in the experimental group (χ² = 62.259, p ≤ .001). Non-significant findings included no differences in BMI (p = .232), learning styles (all p > .5), and performance tests (SLCT p = .070, RT p = .917). Qualitative feedback highlighted feelings of calmness, improved respiration, and reduced stress, with no adverse events reported. The study indicates that hand sensitization can enhance the perception of biofield sensations, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits for physical and psychological well-being. Practitioners may consider incorporating biofield sensitization techniques into therapeutic practices to improve patient well-being. However, key limitations include the unstandardized questionnaire and the narrow age range of participants, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should explore the duration of biofield sensations and investigate the neuropsychological mechanisms underlying these experiences.