Meta-analytic evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis for mental and somatic health issues: a 20-year perspective.

Introduction: Documented use and investigation of hypnosis spans centuries and its therapeutic use has received endorsement by multiple medical associations. We conducted a comprehensive overview of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of hypnosis to provide a foundational understanding of hypnosis in evidence-based healthcare, insight into the safety of hypnosis interventions, and identification of gaps in the current research literature. Methods: In our systematic review, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of hypnosis in patients with mental or somatic health problems compared to any control condition published after the year 2000 were included. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, HTA Database, Web of Science and a manual search was conducted to identify eligible reviews. Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was rated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Effect estimates on various outcomes including at least three comparisons (k ≥ 3) were extracted and transformed into a common effect size metric (Cohen's d). If available, information on the certainty of evidence for these outcomes (GRADE assessment) was obtained. Results: We included 49 meta-analyses with 261 distinct primary studies. Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies). There was a considerable overlap of the primary studies across the meta-analyses. Only nine meta-analyses were rated to have high methodological quality. Reported effect sizes comparing hypnosis against control conditions ranged from d = -0.04 to d = 2.72. Of the reported effects, 25.4% were medium (d ≥ 0.5), and 28.8% were large (d ≥ 0.8). Discussion: Our findings underline the potential of hypnosis to positively impact various mental and somatic treatment outcomes, with the largest effects found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents. Future research should focus on the investigation of moderators of efficacy, on comparing hypnosis to established interventions, on the efficacy of hypnosis for children and adolescents, and on identifying patients who do not benefit from hypnosis. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023395514, identifier CRD42023395514.

Efficacy of laughter-inducing interventions in patients with somatic or mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laughter-inducing interventions hold promise as affordable and easy to implement treatments for a range of ailments. The aim of this study was to build on meta-analytic evidence for the efficacy of such interventions in treating somatic or mental health patients. METHODS: Studies eligible for the meta-analysis were identified by a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO and by a manual search (date of last search 22/06/2021). All randomized controlled trials comparing spontaneous laughter or simulated laughter to treatment as usual, no treatment/waitlist, or attention control groups were included. There were no language or date restrictions. Separate random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for mental health, physiological, and physical health outcomes. Hedges' g is reported as the standardized mean difference estimate. The study was registered on PROSPERO (#CRD42019139299). RESULTS: Forty-five studies comprising 2,547 randomized participants were included. Laughter-inducing interventions showed significant positive effects on mental health (31 studies, 1,543 patients, g = 0.74, 95% CI [0.48; 1.00], I2 = 81%), physiological (14 studies, 761 patients, g = 0.61 [0.20; 1.03], I2 = 86%), and physical health outcomes (21 studies, 1,105 patients, g = 0.59 [0.30; 0.88], I2 = 80%). Only one study reported adverse events, which were mild in nature. CONCLUSION: Laughter-inducing interventions can have beneficial effects on a variety of health-related outcomes including mental health, physical health, and physiological parameters. Future research should focus on examining differential intervention effects and mechanisms of action.

Autogenic Training for Reducing Chronic Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Autogenic training (AT) is frequently used as therapeutic approach in multimodal pain therapy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the efficacy of AT in individuals suffering from chronic pain in comparison to passive and active control groups. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search in Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and PubPsych and manual searches (last search April 7, 2021) were conducted to locate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment guidelines and references of relevant articles and previous reviews were checked. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text database, DART-Europe E-theses Portal, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), and the Theses Database of the German National Library were screened to identify any unpublished material. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible studies (k = 15 comparisons) including 576 participants were identified. Random-effects meta-analyses revealed a significantly positive, moderate effect of AT on the primary outcome pain compared to passive control groups (g = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36; 0.79], k = 9, I2 = 0%). In comparison with other psychological interventions, no difference was found (g = - 0.05, 95% CI [- 0.30; 0.20], k = 6, I2 = 0%). Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of findings. Overall risk-of-bias judgment was 'some concerns' in the majority of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficial effects of AT on pain reduction were demonstrated, but findings are prone to bias. Furthermore, high methodological quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the promising evidence of AT for individuals with chronic pain.

Efficacy of Hypnosis in Adults Undergoing Surgical Procedures: A meta-analytic update.

In this meta-analysis we updated a review from 2013 investigating the evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis in adults undergoing surgical procedures compared to standard care alone or an attention control. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, and manual searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. In this update, N = 23 eligible studies were added to the existing study pool, resulting in N = 50 studies with 4269 patients. Random effects meta-analyses revealed positive treatment effects on mental distress (g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.39; 0.70], NNT = 3.32), pain (g = 0.37, 95% CI [0.25; 0.50], NNT = 4.78), medication consumption (g = 0.46, 95% CI [0.23; 0.68], NNT = 3.95), recovery (g = 0.26, 95% CI [0.09; 0.42], NNT = 6.91), and surgical procedure time (g = 0.23, 95% CI [0.14; 0.33], NNT = 7.6). No effects were found for physiological parameters (g = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06; 0.33], NNT = 13.26). 95% prediction intervals included the null effect for all outcomes except for procedure time. In conclusion, although positive effects of hypnosis could be shown, overall generalizability is limited due to high heterogeneity of the study results that could not be explained by characteristics of patients, interventions, or study methods.

[Mental Distress and Resilience in Severe Somatic Diseases: An Analysis of Dyadic Relations]. / Psychische Belastung und Resilienz im Rahmen schwerer körperlicher Erkrankungen: eine Analyse dyadischer Zusammenhänge.

AIMS: In this article, we present 3 studies examining patients with current or previous severe physical illness and their partners with respect to dyadic concordance, gender and role differences in mental distress and resilience. METHODS: Study 1 included 55 patients and their partners on average 4.5 years after severe sepsis. Study 2 involved 49 patients with lung cancer, predominantly in advanced stage with metastases, and their partners. In study 3, 69 cancer patients with various tumor entities and tumor stages undergoing additional outpatient homeopathic treatment as well as their partners were examined. All studies used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to measure mental distress and the short version of the Resilience Scale RS-13 to assess resilience as a personality trait. Results were meta-analytically pooled across the 3 studies. RESULTS: We found dyadic concordances between patient and partner in anxiety (r=0.29 [0.06; 0.48], I2=55%) and depression (r=0.44 [0.31; 0.55], I2=0%), but not in resilience. Gender differences emerged consistently across all three studies, both female patients and partners showed more severe anxiety symptoms than males (d=0.58 [0.26; 0.91], I2=0% for patients; d=0.53 [- 0.06; 1.12], I2=69% for partners). Results were heterogeneous for gender differences in depression and for role differences. Higher resilience scores were associated with lower mental distress both in patients and partners. There is some evidence that resilience has a protective effect for mental distress of the spouse. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Based on the results on dyadic concordance between patients and partners in mental distress somatic diseases should always be considered from a systemic perspective. Mental distress of both patients and partners requires special attention in psychosocial support, and partnership resources should be taken into account for coping with the disease.

Non-pharmacological interventions for reducing mental distress in patients undergoing dental procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in adults undergoing dental procedures under regional or general anesthesia compared to standard care alone or an attention control group on the reduction of mental distress, pain, and analgesic use. DATA SOURCES: To identify relevant papers a comprehensive literature search was carried out in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last search August 2017). Additionally, lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews were checked. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database was screened to identify any unpublished material. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 29 eligible randomized controlled trials were included, comprising a total of 2.886 patients. Included trials investigated the effects of hypnosis, enhanced information, relaxation, music, or cognitive-behavioral approaches including distraction. RESULTS: Random effects meta-analyses revealed significant positive treatment effects on the reduction of mental distress (g = 0.58, CI 95% [0.39; 0.76]). Effects on pain relief (g = 0.00, CI 95% [-0.28; 0.28]) and the reduction of analgesic use (g = 0.26, CI 95% [-0.22; 0.73]) were not significant. Because effects on mental distress were substantially heterogeneous, subgroup analyses were run yielding significantly larger effects for studies with low risk of bias compared to studies with high or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias. No significant differences appeared between various types of non-pharmacological interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, benefits of non-pharmacological interventions on reducing mental distress were demonstrated with largest effects being shown for hypnosis. However, further high quality trials are needed to strengthen the promising evidence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that non-pharmacological interventions may be beneficial for reducing mental distress in patients undergoing dental procedures and could thus be considered as valuable adjunct to standard care.

Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2014. Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention control in adults undergoing open heart surgery for pain, pain medication, psychological distress, mobility, and time to extubation. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for eligible studies up to February 2017. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database, ClinicalTrials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify any unpublished material or ongoing trials. We also contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. In addition, we wrote to all leading heart centres in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria to check whether they were aware of any ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (SZ and SK) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We added six studies to this update. Overall, we included 23 studies (2669 participants).For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds), we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only.No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not reduce pain intensity in the short-term interval (g 0.39, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.96, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence), medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or in the long-term interval (g 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.30, 2 studies, 200 participants, moderate-quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to re-medication or on number of participants re-medicated. Only two studies provided data on postoperative analgesic use in the short-term interval, showing that psychological interventions did not reduce the use of analgesic medication (g 1.18, 95% CI -2.03 to 4.39, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence). Studies revealed that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in the medium-term (g 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, 13 studies, 1388 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and likewise in the long-term interval (g 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, 14 studies, 1586 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not improve mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low-quality evidence), nor in the long-term interval (g 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, 4 studies, 458 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported data on time to extubation, indicating that psychological interventions reduced the time to extubation (g 0.56, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.03, 2 studies, 154 participants, low-quality evidence).Overall, the very low to moderate quality of the body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery cannot be regarded as sufficient to draw robust conclusions.Most 'Risk of bias' assessments were low or unclear. We judged selection bias (random sequence generation) and attrition bias to be mostly low risk for included studies. However, we judged the risk of selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias to be mostly unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In line with the conclusions of our previous review, there is a lack of evidence to support or refute psychological interventions in order to reduce postoperative pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in participants undergoing open heart surgery. Given the small numbers of studies, it is not possible to draw robust conclusions on the efficacy of psychological interventions on outcomes such as analgesic use, mobility, and time to extubation respectively on adverse events or harms of psychological interventions.

Efficacy of therapeutic suggestions under general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia does not block central nervous processing of auditive information. Therefore, positive suggestions even given during surgery might have the potential to encourage well-being and recovery of patients. Aim of this review was to summarize the evidence on the efficacy of therapeutic suggestions under general anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery compared to an attention control (i.e. white noise). METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials that investigated therapeutic suggestions presented during general anesthesia to adult patients undergoing surgery or medical procedures. Outcomes on pain intensity, mental distress, recovery, use of medication, measured postoperatively within hospitalization were considered. Electronic searches were carried out in the following databases (last search February 23, 2015): MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible randomized controlled trials were included, comprising a total of 2102 patients. All studies used taped suggestions. Random effects meta-analyses revealed no effects on pain intensity (Hedges' g = 0.04, CI 95% [-0.04; 0.12], number needed to treat [NNT] = 44.3) and mental distress (g = 0.03, CI 95% [-0.11; 0.16], NNT = 68.2). In contrast, we found small but significant positive effects on use of medication (g = 0.19, CI 95% [0.09; 0.29], NNT = 9.2) and on recovery (g = 0.14, CI 95% [0.03; 0.25], NNT = 13.0). All effects were homogeneous and robust. CONCLUSIONS: Even though effects were small, our results provide indications that intraoperative suggestions can have the potential to reduce the need for medication and enhance recovery. Further high quality trials are needed to strengthen the promising evidence on the efficacy of therapeutic suggestions under general anesthesia for patients undergoing surgery.

The Efficacy of Body-Oriented Yoga in Mental Disorders­A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of body-oriented yoga in the treatment of mental disorders has been investigated in numerous studies. This article is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relevant publications. METHODS: All studies in which the efficacy of hatha-yoga, i.e., body-oriented yoga with asanas and pranayama, was studied in adult patients suffering from a mental disorder (as diagnosed by ICD or DSM criteria) were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was disorder-specific symptom severity. The publications were identified by a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and ProQuest databases, supplemented by a search with the Google Scholar search engine and a manual search in the reference lists of meta-analyses and primary studies, as well as in specialized journals. RESULTS: 25 studies with a total of 1339 patients were included in the analysis. A large and significant effect of yoga was seen with respect to the primary endpoint (symptom severity) (Hedges' g = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [0.55; 1.28]; number needed to treat [NNT]: 2.03), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 69.8%) compared to untreated control groups. Small but significant effects of yoga were also seen in comparison with attention control (g = 0.39; [0.04; 0.73]; NNT: 4.55) and physical exercise (g = 0.30; [0.01; 0.59]; NNT: 5.75); no difference in efficacy was found between yoga and standard psychotherapy (g = 0.08; [-0.24; 0,40]; NNT: 21.89). In view of the relatively high risk of bias, these findings should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Body-oriented yoga with asanas and pranayama as central components is a promising complementary treatment for mental disorders and should be investigated in further high-quality studies.

Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery.

BACKGROUND: Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery on pain, pain medication, mental distress, mobility, and time to extubation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), Web of Science (all years to September 2013), and PsycINFO (all years to September 2013) for eligible studies. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We also checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We also searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database (all years to September 2013) and contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (SK and JR) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included (2164 participants).No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects in reducing pain intensity measured with continuous scales in the medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.12, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.33, 3 studies, 280 participants, low quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to remedication or on number of participants remedicated. Only one study provided data on postoperative analgesic use. Studies reporting data on mental distress in the medium-term interval revealed a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions (g 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, 12 studies, 1144 participants, low quality evidence). Likewise, a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions on mental distress was obtained in the long-term interval (g 0.28, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.51, 11 studies, 1320 participants, low quality evidence). There were no beneficial effects of psychological interventions on mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.29, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.71, 4 studies, 423 participants, low quality evidence). Only one study reported data on time to extubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds) we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects on reducing postoperative pain intensity or enhancing mobility. There is low quality evidence that psychological interventions reduce postoperative mental distress. Due to limitations in methodological quality, a small number of studies, and large heterogeneity, we rated the quality of the body of evidence as low. Future trials should measure crucial outcomes (e.g. number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline) and should focus to enhance the quality of the body of evidence in general. Altogether, the current evidence does not clearly support the use of psychological interventions to reduce pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery.

[Psychological interventions in surgical care: a narrative review of current meta-analytic evidence]. / Psychologische Interventionen im Rahmen chirurgischer Eingriffe: eine narrative Übersicht über vorliegende Meta-Analysen.

Studies investigating the effects of adjunctive psychological interventions to surgical routine care are summarized as a narrative review of existing meta-analyses. Primary studies evaluate the effects of the provision of information, supportive approaches, coping skills training, behavioural instructions, cognitive-behavioural strategies, relaxation, and hypnosis. The meta-analyses include studies of different methodological quality, also considering non-randomized trials, and indicate small to large effects depending on the type of intervention and outcome measure. The greatest effects were achieved on patient satisfaction, recovery, and the reduction of postoperative pain, with a slight advantage of complex interventions. Since most of the meta-analyses reveal methodological limitations, an updated and methodologically improved quantitative research synthesis seems to be required.

Bypass surgery with psychological and spiritual support (the By.pass study): study design and research methods.

Effects of psychological as well as spiritual interventions on outcome in cardiac surgery have mostly been studied with a focus on presurgical interventions. Systematically controlled analyses of the effects of psychological and spiritual interventions depending on the patients' preference have not been performed so far, although these studies would help to assign patients to an adequate support. The By.pass study is a bi-center, controlled trial of patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery and coronary bypass surgery combined with valve replacement surgery in 2 different German hospitals. Patients are assigned to 1 of 5 conditions, mainly according to their personal therapeutic preference: preference for psychological interventions (group 1), preference for spiritual interventions (group 2), or preference for no intervention (group 5). Patients who are open for any kind of intervention are randomly assigned either to psychological (group 3) or spiritual interventions (group 4). Six months before the start and 6 months after the end of the treatment phase, patients were assigned to the control groups. These were asked about their subjective preference (psychological, spiritual, no intervention, or no specific preference) as well but received no interventions. Patients will be enrolled from October 2006 to December 2009. The 6-month follow-up will be completed in July 2010.

[Improving medical education in psychosocial disciplines by multimedia tools]. / Multimediales Lernen -- Chance für die psychosozialen Fächer?

The use of multimedia tools is gaining increasing importance in medical education. These tools provide adequate techniques and possibilities for education within all medical including the psychosocial disciplines. Until now, a lack of multimedia learning programs and websites providing material related to psychosocial issues has to be considered in Germany. On the other hand, a new Medical Licensure Act (Approbationsordnung fuer Aerzte) will have a dramatic impact on medical education and teaching. On this basis there is a broad need for multimedialearning-environments, covering parts of the changes demanded by the new educational standards. Considering the lack of available multimedia learning programs and the need for those tools due to the medical education reform in Germany, the rapid development, validation and curricular implementation of those programs is required. This should be a goal of high priority, especially for the teaching of issues related to medical psychology, medical sociology, and psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy.