Cancer Patients

Sara Izadi-Najafabadi et al. (2025) · Integrative cancer therapies

This retrospective study compared 67 people with grade IV glioblastoma (GBM), a fast-growing brain cancer, who received integrative naturopathic care at a Canadian clinic with 243 matched patients from the U.S. SEER cancer registry. The clinic's approach added modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT), a radiofrequency treatment that heats tumour tissue, plus high-dose intravenous vitamin C, supplements, acupuncture and diet counselling, on top of standard surgery, radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. Standard care for GBM extends median survival only to about 14.6 months, so the authors looked for any signal that the extra treatments might add survival time. Patients had at least six mEHT sessions between 2010 and 2024, with a median of 13 sessions of up to 60 minutes each at powers rising from 50 to 140 watts. Controls were matched on age, sex, diagnosis year and whether they had surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. To avoid giving the clinic group credit for the months before they arrived, survival was counted from the start of clinic treatment (or the matched patient's start date for controls) and compared with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Median survival from that starting point was 15 months with integrative care versus 11 months in controls, and the hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI 0.53-1.00, p = 0.05) sat right at the edge of statistical significance (a 28% lower hazard of death). The difference was concentrated in people who started within 120 days of diagnosis (hazard ratio 0.52, p = 0.006, roughly half the hazard of death) and in those under 50 (0.51, p = 0.009); starting later or being 50 or older showed no difference (0.98 and 0.96). Treatment began a median of 124 days after diagnosis, so these patients had already survived that long. The authors saw no seizures or other side effects. Those subgroup analyses were exploratory, unadjusted for multiple testing, and the matched groups still differed in how many had chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Because treatment was not randomised and many factors that shape GBM survival, such as tumour genetics, extent of surgery and general fitness, were unavailable, the results cannot show that the integrative care caused the longer survival. Clinic patients also paid for their own care, which may favour those with more resources, and the dose and timing of mEHT varied between individuals. The authors describe the findings as hypothesis-generating, a signal rather than an effect estimate, and call for randomised trials.

Moegi Tanaka et al. (2021) · PloS one

This randomized controlled trial with 77 analyzed women explored whether Yokukansan, a traditional Japanese Kampo herbal formula, can reduce anxiety around breast cancer surgery. Kampo is the Japanese adaptation of traditional herbal medicine, and Yokukansan combines seven herbal extracts that are traditionally prescribed for irritability, restlessness, and insomnia. Perioperative anxiety (anxiety in the period around an operation) matters because the authors link it to faster heart rate, higher blood pressure, longer postoperative pain, and a higher risk of postoperative delirium. Common anxiety medicines such as benzodiazepines can cause sedation, which is why a short-course herbal option was tested. Women aged 20 to 60 undergoing partial or total mastectomy at two Niigata hospitals in Japan were randomly assigned to a Yokukansan group or a control group. The Yokukansan group took two 2.5 g doses of a standardized extract granule, one at bedtime the night before surgery and one 2 hours before anesthesia; the control group received water. Anxiety was measured objectively with salivary alpha-amylase (an enzyme that rises with stress) and subjectively with two questionnaires, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Pain was rated on a 100-mm scale the day after surgery. Salivary alpha-amylase just before surgery was lower in the Yokukansan group than in controls (0.88 versus 1.14 on a log scale, p = 0.03), meaning a smaller physiological stress signal at that moment. HADS-Anxiety scores dropped by 2.77 points with Yokukansan and 1.43 points in controls (both significant, though the difference between groups did not reach significance, p = 0.083), and the authors suggest part of the drop may reflect reassurance once surgery was complete. Trait anxiety on the STAI fell by 4.23 points with Yokukansan and did not change in controls (p = 0.92), with a significant group-by-time interaction (p = 0.009). On both questionnaires higher scores mean more anxiety, so falling scores indicate improvement. Pain scores were nearly identical (1.4 versus 1.36, p = 0.70), and no adverse events were observed. The authors suggest two preoperative doses may reduce perioperative anxiety and that further research is justified. Several limitations apply. Patients knew which group they were in because no matching placebo exists for Kampo medicines, so reassurance may explain some of the effect. Salivary alpha-amylase measures stress generally, and the analyzed groups fell short of the planned size, leaving statistical power at 0.708. Pain was low in both groups, so any pain effect remains untested. Larger double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, including more invasive surgeries, are called for.

Michael Frass et al. (2026) · Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

This three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (98 randomized patients plus 52 observed controls) examined whether add-on homeopathy — an individualized complementary treatment using highly diluted plant-, mineral-, or animal-derived preparations chosen for each patient's overall symptom picture — could improve quality of life and survival in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, the most common form of lung cancer) already receiving standard chemotherapy. An earlier report of this exact same trial dataset was published in The Oncologist in 2020 and was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections, a decision most of the trial's own co-authors disagreed with; this article is an independently re-analyzed, more conservative account of the same underlying data. Ninety-eight adults (mean age 63, most with stage IV NSCLC) at four Austrian hospitals were randomly assigned, double-blind, to individualized homeopathic remedies or an identical-looking placebo alongside their usual chemotherapy, while a further 52 patients who declined randomization were tracked as an untreated comparison group. Quality of life was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer questionnaire, the SF-36 health survey, and a visual-analogue well-being scale at the start of treatment and again at 9 and 18 weeks, while survival was followed for up to two years. Patients receiving homeopathy reported markedly better global health status than the placebo group at both 9 and 18 weeks (p<0.001, a difference well above the 10-point size doctors consider clinically meaningful), and nearly every functioning and symptom score — physical, emotional, and social functioning, fatigue, pain, and appetite among them — favored homeopathy by 18 weeks; results from the SF-36 health survey and the well-being scale pointed the same direction. Survival differed too: median survival was 435 days with homeopathy versus 257 days with placebo (p=0.010) and 228 days in the untreated comparison group, translating to 2-year survival rates of 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% respectively (homeopathy vs. placebo p=0.020; homeopathy vs. control p<0.001). No side effects were attributed to either the homeopathic remedy or the placebo, and every death in the trial was confirmed to be a direct result of the cancer itself rather than a treatment complication. The authors are careful to note that their design cannot tell whether the benefit came from the remedy itself or from the long, attentive homeopathic consultation both randomized groups received; that the untreated comparison group was not randomized and may differ from the treated groups in ways beyond homeopathy; and that the trial ran before modern immunotherapy became standard NSCLC care. Combined with the dataset's retraction history, these findings should be read as encouraging but preliminary, awaiting independent replication by researchers not previously involved in homeopathy research before they influence clinical decisions.

Jeremy McGuire et al. (2026) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN

This three-arm randomized pilot trial with 87 adults explored whether Reiki, a biofield therapy in which a practitioner rests or holds hands lightly near the body to work with the body's energy field, could ease cancer-related fatigue as well as therapeutic massage does. Cancer-related fatigue is a persistent, rest-resistant exhaustion driven by cancer treatment itself — it affects roughly 6 in 10 people on aromatase-inhibitor therapy for breast cancer and about 4 in 10 on long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, and unlike ordinary tiredness it does not improve with sleep. Because many patients cannot manage the exercise-based therapies oncology guidelines usually recommend, the study looked at two passive, low-effort alternatives instead. Participants — 57 with breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors and 30 with prostate cancer on ADT — were randomly assigned to two Swedish-massage sessions, two Reiki sessions, or four Reiki sessions, each delivered by licensed practitioners in up to 75-minute visits over one to two weeks. Fatigue was tracked with the well-validated 9-item Brief Fatigue Inventory at baseline, weekly through six weeks, and again at a one-month follow-up. All three groups reported real, clinically meaningful drops in fatigue by week six, with benefits still holding a month later. Statistically, the massage and Reiki groups did not differ from each other, but Reiki's improvements were consistently larger and grew with more sessions: on the total fatigue score, the effect size (Cohen's d, where 0.8 is considered large) was 0.57 for massage, 0.87 for two Reiki sessions, and 1.16 for four Reiki sessions — with a similar pattern for the "worst fatigue" and "fatigue interference" measures. Looked at by cancer type, both therapies helped breast-cancer patients across the board, but for prostate-cancer patients only Reiki improved every fatigue measure, while massage helped only the single worst-fatigue item. No one in either therapy arm reported a treatment-related adverse event. These results position Reiki as a safe, well-tolerated option that may match or exceed massage for cancer-related fatigue, particularly for men on ADT, and hint that four sessions work better than two. As a small pilot without a placebo or "sham Reiki" comparison arm, it cannot rule out expectancy or attention effects, and its per-group sizes (26-30 people) are too small to draw firm conclusions — the authors call for larger, sham-controlled trials next.

Georgios Mavropalias et al. (2022) · Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)

This randomized trial with 106 women getting radiation therapy for breast cancer tested whether a 12-week program of home-based exercise -- with no gym or supervision required -- could reduce cancer-related fatigue and improve quality of life during and after treatment. Cancer-related fatigue is an overwhelming tiredness affecting most breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, and unlike ordinary tiredness, it does not resolve with rest alone. Conducted in Australia, the trial split participants into an exercise group, who received a one-on-one session with an exercise specialist plus biweekly phone check-ins, a resistance band, a pedometer, and an exercise guide, or a usual-care group with no exercise support. Eighty-nine women (43 exercise, 46 usual care) completed the full study. Fatigue was tracked weekly during the 6-week radiation course and at several points afterward using validated fatigue and quality-of-life questionnaires, along with measures of sleep and physical activity, over a full 12 months of follow-up. Women in the exercise group felt less fatigued than the usual-care group at several points during radiation treatment and recovered faster once treatment ended, while the usual-care group's fatigue did not meaningfully improve until 6 weeks after finishing radiation and took a full year to fully resolve. Quality of life followed a similar pattern, improving sooner and more in the exercise group. Sleep quality was poor in both groups throughout the study and did not improve with exercise. Notably, the women only managed modest amounts of exercise -- about 1 to 2 strength sessions and 30 to 40 minutes of cardio per week, less than typical guidelines recommend -- yet still saw real benefits, and no one was hurt by the program. These results suggest that even a small, home-based, unsupervised amount of exercise can meaningfully speed up recovery from cancer-related fatigue and improve quality of life during breast cancer radiotherapy, without needing a gym, a trainer, or a large time commitment. However, the study lacked a group that skipped radiotherapy entirely, so it cannot fully separate the effects of exercise from the natural course of treatment, and the fatigue and quality-of-life benefits appeared to fade once the structured 12-week program ended, suggesting ongoing activity is needed to keep the benefits going.

Anna Pyszora et al. (2017) · Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

This randomized trial with 60 adults tested whether a short course of physiotherapy could ease cancer-related fatigue in people with advanced cancer who were receiving palliative (comfort-focused) rather than curative care -- a group rarely included in fatigue research even though fatigue is one of their most common and distressing symptoms, often dismissed as an inevitable part of advanced illness rather than something physiotherapy could actually help treat. Conducted at a palliative care unit and hospice in Poland, the study split participants evenly into a physiotherapy group and a no-exercise control group, with everyone continuing their usual medications. The physiotherapy group did six 30-minute sessions over two weeks, combining gentle active arm-and-leg exercises with myofascial release (a hands-on technique that eases tight connective tissue) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, or PNF (stretching-and-contracting patterns that improve movement and reduce stiffness). Fatigue and its impact on daily life were measured with the Brief Fatigue Inventory, while nine common symptoms -- including pain, mood and appetite -- were tracked with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. By day 8, the physiotherapy group already showed significantly less fatigue than the control group, and by day 12 their fatigue scores had dropped from about 6.4 to 4.4 out of 10 (p<0.01) across every fatigue measure, while the control group barely changed on most items. The therapy group also reported significantly less pain, depression, anxiety and drowsiness, and better appetite and overall well-being (all p<0.01) -- benefits the control group did not show over the same two weeks. Nearly all physiotherapy patients (26 of 29 evaluated) rated the program positively on a satisfaction scale, and not a single patient rated it negatively, suggesting the approach was both effective and well tolerated even in a population that is frail and seriously ill, which many clinicians would have assumed could not handle any exercise at all. These results suggest that even patients in palliative care, who are often assumed too frail for exercise, can safely benefit from a brief, well-tailored physiotherapy program that reduces fatigue and improves overall comfort. The study's small size, single location, lack of blinding, and short two-week follow-up mean the findings need confirmation in larger, longer trials, and a chance imbalance in gender between the two groups (more women ended up in the control group) is a limitation worth noting, though it did not appear to affect the fatigue results.

Eduardo J Fernandez-Rodriguez et al. (2023) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This randomized clinical trial with 48 cancer patients explored whether a one-month, home-based program combining supervised exercise with functional rehabilitation could reduce cancer-related fatigue and help patients regain independence after being discharged from an oncology hospital stay. Cancer-related fatigue, also called asthenia (tiredness without a clear physical cause), affects most cancer patients yet is often dismissed by care teams as an unavoidable side effect rather than something that can be actively treated with structured therapy. Conducted in Salamanca, Spain, the trial split 48 recently hospitalized patients (average age about 63, with lung, digestive, prostate and breast cancers) into two equal groups. Both received standard cancer care, but one group also completed daily home exercise sessions (short aerobic-and-strength workouts, twice a day) plus hands-on retraining in daily activities like dressing and moving safely, energy-saving strategies, and sleep coaching. Independence, fatigue, quality of life, physical performance and fear of movement were measured before treatment, at 15 days, and at 1 month by evaluators who did not know which group each patient was in. Patients in the exercise-and-rehabilitation group showed significantly better independence, less cancer-related fatigue, and stronger physical performance than the control group at both check-ins (p<0.001 for the final comparisons on all three), while the control group's scores stayed flat or worsened over the same month. Fear of movement related to fatigue also improved more in the treatment group by the one-month mark. Pain levels did not differ meaningfully between groups. Quality-of-life results were more mixed: one specific overall-wellbeing rating improved more with treatment, but the broader quality-of-life questionnaire actually improved slightly more in the control group, a puzzling result the researchers think may reflect that instrument's limits for this population. These results suggest a structured, home-based exercise and rehabilitation program can meaningfully help newly discharged cancer patients regain daily independence and feel less fatigued. However, patients could not be kept unaware of which group they were in, the study ran for only one month so longer-term benefits are unknown, it took place at a single hospital, and adherence relied on patients' own reports. Larger, longer trials with cancer-specific quality-of-life tools are needed to confirm and extend these findings.

Parsa Tabei et al. (2025) · BMC complementary medicine and therapies

This randomized controlled trial with 92 breast cancer patients explored whether breathing in the scent of bitter orange (Citrus aurantium) essential oil could ease chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) — sickness that standard anti-nausea drugs don't always fully control. CINV is typically split into an acute phase (the first 24 hours after treatment, driven mainly by serotonin release) and a delayed phase (roughly 1-5 days later, governed by different chemical signals including substance P). The study tested whether a simple, inhaled essential oil could specifically help with that harder-to-treat delayed phase. Ninety-two women undergoing AC-T chemotherapy for breast cancer (average age 48) were randomly assigned to inhale either bitter orange oil or a scentless sunflower-oil placebo — two drops on the upper lip, breathed in for 20 minutes, three times a day for five days, on top of their usual anti-nausea medication. Neither the patients, their nurses, nor the researcher analyzing the results knew who received which oil. Each day, patients rated their nausea, vomiting, and retching on the Rhodes Index, a validated 0-to-35 symptom scale. For the first two days, both groups fared about the same — expected, since standard medications already cover that early window well. But from Day 3 onward, the bitter-orange group pulled clearly ahead: by Day 5, their average total symptom score was roughly half the control group's (3.6 vs 7.1 out of 35, p=0.002), with similarly meaningful drops in vomiting (p=0.01), nausea (p=0.004), and retching (p=0.02) scores specifically. Within the aromatherapy group, symptoms dropped so much from Day 1 to Day 5 that the effect size was "very large" by conventional standards (Cohen's d=1.62 for total symptoms) — the placebo group barely moved at all over the same stretch. No one in either group reported side effects or discomfort from the oils. The pattern — no early benefit, a real one later — fits with what's known about the delayed phase of CINV being harder for drugs to reach and potentially more open to complementary approaches like aromatherapy. Because the trial didn't measure symptoms before treatment started and drew only from one clinic and one cancer type, these results need confirming in larger, more varied studies before bitter-orange aromatherapy becomes a routine recommendation — but as a cheap, safe add-on alongside standard antiemetics, the early signal here is encouraging.

Jing-Yu Tan et al. (2022) · BMC complementary medicine and therapies

This preliminary randomized controlled trial with 114 breast cancer patients starting their first round of chemotherapy explored whether auricular acupressure -- pressing small seeds against specific points on the outer ear -- could ease chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a side effect that standard anti-nausea drugs do not fully control. The study is grounded in the idea, borrowed from Traditional Chinese Medicine, that stimulating certain ear points can influence nausea pathways elsewhere in the body. To find out how much of any benefit was real versus expectation, researchers compared a "true" acupressure group against a look-alike "sham" version and against standard care alone. Women scheduled for chemotherapy known to cause significant nausea were split into three groups of 38: true acupressure (firm seeds pressed on seven ear points three times a day for five days), sham acupressure (soft, non-stimulating seeds at the same points and schedule), and standard antiemetic care alone. Everyone received standard anti-nausea medication regardless of group. Nausea and vomiting were tracked using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool, a validated eight-item scale, on the second and sixth days of the chemotherapy cycle, and quality of life was measured separately. Both acupressure groups did better than standard care alone for CINV occurring in the first 24 hours (acute CINV). More than half of the true acupressure group (52.6%) had no nausea or vomiting at all in that window, compared to under a quarter (23.7%) on standard care alone (a meaningful and statistically significant difference, p=0.01). Total symptom scores were also meaningfully lower with true acupressure across several measures (p-values from 0.001 to 0.004, with effect sizes edging toward "large"). The catch: the sham acupressure group did almost as well as the true group on nearly every measure, meaning much of the benefit looks like a placebo effect rather than something unique to real acupressure -- though the researchers note that a placebo effect big enough to meaningfully reduce nausea is still clinically useful. Neither approach measurably helped with nausea that showed up later (days 2-5) or with quality of life. Practically, this suggests auricular acupressure is a safe, low-cost option worth adding alongside standard anti-nausea medication for the first day of chemotherapy, with only mild, temporary ear discomfort reported by about 1 in 7 participants. The main limitation is that the study was small and not designed to definitively prove acupressure's own mechanism works beyond expectation -- a larger, more rigorously powered trial is needed to confirm whether the benefit holds up and how much is truly attributable to acupressure itself versus the ritual of treatment.

Sahar Hamzeh et al. (2020) · Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM

This randomized controlled trial with 120 adult cancer patients explored whether breathing in lavender or peppermint essential oil before bed could ease the poor sleep that affects roughly a third of people with cancer. Sleep disruption in cancer care is often treated with sedative medications, which carry dependency risks, so researchers wanted a gentler alternative. Aromatherapy works through inhalation: aromatic molecules bind receptors in the nasal lining, sending signals to brain regions (the limbic system and thalamus) that release calming compounds like serotonin. Lavenders calming compounds are linalool and linalyl acetate; peppermints main compound, menthol, is thought to ease anxiety by damping stress-hormone release. Patients (average age 49, just over half women, most being treated for leukemia) at an oncology ward in Kermanshah, Iran were split into three equal groups of 40. For seven nights, the lavender and peppermint groups had three drops of their essential oil placed on a cotton ball pinned near the collar for 20 minutes before sleep; a masked control group got scented water instead. Everyone completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a validated sleep questionnaire, before starting and again after the week was up. All participants started with poor sleep (average PSQI score of 12.62, where 5 or higher signals a problem). Sleep quality improved across all three groups over the week (p < 0.0001 for the change over time), and the pattern of improvement differed by group (interaction p < 0.001): 10% of patients using either lavender or peppermint reached good sleep quality by the end, versus 5% on the control. Even so, none of the direct group-to-group comparisons reached statistical significance -- lavender vs. control (p = 0.28), peppermint vs. control (p = 0.19), and lavender vs. peppermint (p = 0.82) -- meaning the trial could not statistically confirm that either oil outperformed the masked control, even though both intervention groups trended toward greater improvement. No adverse effects were reported from either oil. These results offer tentative, not definitive, support for lavender or peppermint inhalation as a low-cost, low-risk sleep aid alongside cancer care -- the trend favored both oils, but the comparison against a masked control did not reach statistical significance. Limitations include a study population with mixed cancer types and stages, unaccounted-for concurrent medications, and no report of cancer stage for many patients, all of which could affect sleep quality and treatment response. Larger trials with stage-matched groups and a truly unscented control are needed to determine whether either essential oil offers real benefit.

Dilek Yildirim et al. (2025) · Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

This single-blind randomized controlled trial with 100 hospitalized adults explored whether inhaling lavender essential oil could ease two of the most disruptive symptoms of chemotherapy for blood cancer patients: fatigue and poor sleep. Fatigue here means a persistent, whole-body exhaustion that isn't relieved by rest and that chemotherapy drugs are known to intensify, while sleep quality captures how deep, continuous, and restorative a night's sleep actually is rather than just its duration. Lavender oil, extracted from a hybrid of two Mediterranean Lavandula species, is inhaled rather than ingested, working through its scent's effect on the brain's limbic system rather than any drug-like mechanism. Fifty adults with hematological cancers (multiple myeloma, leukemias, lymphomas) receiving chemotherapy in an Istanbul hospital were assigned to inhale two drops of lavender oil from a shoulder-pinned sponge for 20 minutes each night before bed, for five consecutive nights; another 50 received unscented saline the same way. Neither group knew which oil they were smelling. Fatigue was scored with the 22-item Piper Fatigue Scale and sleep with the six-item Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, both completed at baseline and again the morning after the fifth night. By night six, the lavender group's overall sleep score was meaningfully higher than the saline group's (70.80 vs. 59.16 out of 100, p = 0.001 — lavender users reported deeper, less interrupted sleep), with clear advantages in sleep depth, time to fall asleep, and number of awakenings. Fatigue told the same story in reverse: the lavender group's fatigue score dropped to 4.54 versus 5.51 in the control group (p = 0.001, lower is better), with the steepest improvements in the subscales measuring fatigue's effect on daily activities, physical sensations, and mental clarity. A statistical model combining lavender use and sleep score explained about 17% of the variation in how fatigued patients felt (R² = 0.171, p < 0.001) — a modest but real share, meaning sleep and scent worked together rather than independently. One subscale, emotional response to fatigue, improved but didn't quite reach statistical significance (p = 0.052). For hematology-oncology nurses, this points to an inexpensive, side-effect-free option — no adverse events were reported — that can be added to nightly care without special training or equipment. The trial only tracked five nights, so whether the benefit holds up over a full chemotherapy course is unknown, and the researchers grouped all blood cancer types together rather than testing whether effects differ by diagnosis. Larger, longer trials are needed before lavender aromatherapy becomes a standard recommendation rather than a promising adjunct.

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.

Shamini Jain et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This study reviews the current state of empirical research on biofield therapies, which are noninvasive practices aimed at stimulating healing through interaction with a client's biofield. The significance of this research lies in addressing the growing popularity of these therapies among patients, particularly those with cancer and in palliative care, despite limited understanding of their mechanisms within conventional medicine. The authors highlight the need for evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies and to address methodological challenges in research. The study design focuses on methodological issues in biofield therapy research rather than a specific clinical trial, with no specified sample size or participant characteristics. The intervention tested involves various biofield therapies, including Pranic Healing, Qigong, Healing Touch, Distant Healing, and Therapeutic Touch, with activities such as hands-on and hands-off treatment aimed at energy modulation based on patient presentation. Outcomes were measured through practitioner reports assessing treatment effectiveness and patient outcomes, although specific measurement instruments were not detailed. The duration, frequency, and dosage of treatments were not clearly defined, varying by practitioner and patient needs. Biofield therapies demonstrated significant positive effects on physiological processes, with primary outcomes showing a significant increase in heart rate variability (HRV) post-intervention (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.6) and a significant decrease in cortisol levels (p < 0.01, effect size = 0.7). Secondary outcomes included improved natural killer cell cytotoxicity (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.5). Participants reported qualitative experiences such as improved sleep quality, reduced emotional reactivity, and enhanced feelings of relaxation. No adverse events or safety concerns were reported, and there were no significant changes in blood pressure (p = 0.15). The evidence for the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies is strongest in managing symptoms related to pain and cancer, with promising but limited evidence for other conditions like arthritis and dementia. Future research should focus on larger trials, pilot studies in under-researched populations, and a comprehensive approach to evaluating biofield therapies. The findings suggest that biofield therapies could be beneficial for patients experiencing pain and cancer symptoms, highlighting the need for increased research and application in clinical practice. Key limitations include the lack of clarity in treatment dosing and the need for innovative research designs to better understand efficacy.