We give the online version of this column credit for being merely descriptive in its headline: “Reiki used for cancer patients.” Yes. This method of light massage is indeed being used for cancer patients. But there isn’t much evidence to support it. The story tries to make this point clear, but the point is muddied by some of the more exuberant language in the piece. By referring to it as “a form of healing” and talking about how parts of the body are “treated” by “therapists,” the story legitimizes what is actually an uNPRoven form of massage that at times does not even involve contact between the massage therapist and the patient.
Cancer patients often are in extreme pain and can feel deep depression about their condition. Stories about alternative therapies to relieve anxiety or pain need to present real evidence with a more clear focus on the weight of the evidence or lack thereof.
We give the story high marks here for at least addressing the costs at a couple of centers. It says, “At Memorial Sloan-Kettering, treatment for inpatients is available at no extra charge; outpatients pay $90 to $110 a session. At Norris Cotton, trained volunteers administer treatments free of charge—often while patients are at the hospital receiving intravenous chemotherapy treatments. Insurance typically doesn’t pay for Reiki.” That last sentence is crucial. The reporter might have asked an insurance company for what other sorts of pain relief or anxiety relief treatments insurance does cover and why Reiki didn’t meet the same bar.
Another mixed bag.
But if we gave a barely satisfactory grade on “evidence,” we must balance the scale here and render this unsatisfactory. Why?
One of the selling points of Reiki is how harmless it may be (lack of efficacy notwithstanding). The story could have addressed what might be the greater harm in people choosing Reiki for therapeutic benefit and forgoing other, proven treatment methods.
We’ll again give the column the benefit of the doubt.
This is a mixed bag.
The first reference to the evidence in this story is misleading. It says, “Several studies suggest a benefit to patients, but scientists say more large, rigorous studies are needed.” In fact, as the story goes on later to explain, there is no evidence that Reiki itself has any therapuetic value beyond the simple person-to-person contact that is a necessary part of the experience.
But since the story explains that the studies cited have size limitations or produced results that were not statistically significant or were not focused on Reiki – and because one independent expert says one theory is “absurd,” we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
In the future, we suggest that the evidence not be presented to readers in between enthusastic comments such as “How it works is a mystery, but we see anecdotally the amount of delight” it brings patients.” Our heads were spinning at the “on-again, off-again, yes it does, no it doesn’t” nature of the column.
No disease mongering of cancer or of side effects of chemotherapy.
The story quoted many experts. Most, however, were used to at least hint at the idea that Reiki has some benefit. We do appreciate some of the candor, though. “Barrie Cassileth, chief of the Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, calls the energy theory ‘absurd’ but says light-touch therapy can have a ‘great relaxing effect’ on cancer patients ‘who are constantly poked, prodded and given needles.'”
The column does not compare Reiki to any other alternatives. It mentions one study that looked at other massage techniques, but doesn’t explain how/if those approaches differ from Reiki. “A 2004 study of 1,290 cancer patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering found a light-touch massage, standard Swedish massage and foot massage all helped symptoms including pain, depression anxiety, nausea and fatigue; the study didn’t have a control group.”
The premise of the story is that this is a treatment that is “increasingly being used.” The story says, “Reiki, a therapy in which hands are placed lightly on the body or just above it, is increasingly being used to reduce cancer-related fatigue, anxiety, nausea and pain.” The story never goes on to prove that this is a method that is increasingly being used. All we are given are a few examples of treatment centers that do offer Reiki and then this: “Other centers don’t offer Reiki, citing insufficient evidence. “There isn’t a good evidence base for its utility in cancer care as of yet,” says Lorenzo Cohen, a professor in the departments of general oncology and behavioral science at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.”
Readers across the country may be left wondering just how widespread this practice is.
The story explains that Reiki originated in Japan in the early 1900s.
The story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like