Effect of the Spiritist "passe" energy therapy in reducing anxiety in volunteers: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, one of the most used energy therapies is the Spiritist "passe", which is practiced by Spiritist healers. Although experimental studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of different energy therapies in reducing anxiety and pain, little is known about the effect of the Spiritist "passe" on health outcomes. Therefore, the present study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of "passe" energy therapy in reducing anxiety symptoms. METHODS/DESIGN: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Intervention (8 weekly Spiritist "passe" sessions, n=23), and Control (8 weekly sham Spiritist "passe" sessions, n=27). Anxiety was assessed using the Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-trait). RESULTS: Of 97 individuals screened, 50 were included in the final analysis. Decreasing STAI-trait anxiety scores were observed in both groups throughout the study (p<0.0001). By the end of the study, 17% and 63% of intervention and control participants, respectively, still met the criterion for anxiety (p=0.001). However, anxiety reduction was more accentuated in the Spiritist "passe" group (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: In this small pilot study, anxiety was more markedly reduced in participants receiving the Spiritist "passe" than in controls, warranting larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02376959.

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification. METHOD: A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75). RESULTS: A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinical trials used the term "efficacy" to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator's own experiences and knowledge.

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE:We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification.METHOD:A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75).RESULTS:A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy.CONCLUSIONS:Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age.

RATIONALE AND AIM: The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. RESULTS: We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. CONCLUSION: Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.