A systematic review by Myeong Soo Lee, Max H. Pittler and Edzard Ernst, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice in 2008, examining nine randomised clinical trials of reiki touch therapy. Its conclusion, drawn from the trials it could locate, was that the evidence was insufficient to show reiki effective for any condition, citing small sample sizes, inadequate design and poor reporting across the trial base and, in several trials, an inability to replicate the small positive results earlier studies had reported. Its strength is exactly that independence and method: none of the three authors is affiliated with a reiki teaching organisation, and Ernst in particular built a career auditing complementary-medicine evidence on this kind of systematic basis. Its limit is that it can only summarise the trials that exist, and the trial base it summarises is itself small and methodologically weak, which is part of what the review reports.
Facts
Citation
AuthorM. S. Lee, M. H. Pittler, E. Ernst
PublisherInternational Journal of Clinical Practice
Publication Year2008
URLhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Peer-reviewed systematic review of nine randomised clinical trials, published in a peer-reviewed clinical medicine journal (International Journal of Clinical Practice, 2008;62(6):947-954, doi 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x), the highest evidentiary tier available for a clinical-efficacy claim: independent authorship, peer review, and a stated systematic method rather than a single trial or an advocacy summary. Claims Backed By This Source (9 claims)
This source backs 9 claims across the atlas. As facts: 8 well-attested. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
- Disciplines, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.