Reiki, the Japanese practice of “energy healing” is one of many complementary or alternative medical services now available at select health centers in the U.S. This story describes the use of Reiki therapy for several diseases and conditions. Although the story attempts to describe the evidence to support reiki therapy, ultimately it fails to provide the reader with balanced information on what reiki can or can’t do.
Although the story describes the benefits of treatment in two studies, the story fails to provide adequate information on the nature of the benefits. For example, the story states that “more than 75% reported increased energy” and “those receiving Reiki took fewer pain medications.” Neither statement provides adequate information on the benefits. How much energy? How many fewer medications? Also, because the story does not explain the design of these studies, the reader does not know how much of this benefit may be due to placebo effect. The story didn’t discuss the limitations of small studies (22 patients in one) or of studies that rely on patients’ self-reporting of improvement.
Although the story mentions several trials, the reader is not provided with enough information to evaluate the strength of the available evidence. How were the studies designed? What were the outcomes measured? How long was the follow up? The story mentions that Reiki is available at a handful of institutions, but this is insufficient information on availability. How many Reiki practitioners are there around the country, and in what types of settings? Are they licensed or certified? If so, by whom? If not, what does that mean? A major concern with many alternative practices is that providers have minimal training yet still are paid quite a sum of money to “practice” their art, regardless of whether it is proven effective.
The story does describe the cost of treatment for one patient – about $500 for two months of sessions. But the story could have explained whether this is representative of usual Reiki costs. It did mention that the profiled patient’s charges weren’t covered by insurance. Is this the norm?
Although the story does describe the benefits of treatment in two studies, the story fails to provide adequate information on the nature of the benefits. For example, the story states that “more than 75% reported increased energy” and ” those receiving Reiki took fewer pain medications.” Neither of these statements provides adequate information on the benefits. How much energy? How many fewer medications? Also, because the story does not explain the design of these studies, the reader does not know how much of this benefit may be due to placebo effect.
The story does not mention harms. One harm may be that patients would delay seeing their physician for a problem, resulting in a late diagnosis.
Although the story mentions several trials, the reader is not provided with enough information to evaluate the strength of the available evidence. How were the studies designed? What were the outcomes measured? How long was the follow up?
In discussing one study in people with AIDS, the story said “Of those who received Reiki, more than 75 percent reported increased energy, compared with no change in the control group.” There was no discussion of the limitations of such self-reporting. The story also mentioned a study of the effects of Reiki on patients who were having abdominal hysterectomies – a study of 22 patients – without any discussion of the limitations of such a small study.
The story discusses Reiki being used for several conditions, and doesn’t focus on any one, so disease mongering is not applicable in this case.
The story quotes three Reiki practitioners. The story should have quoted other practitioners or reseachers who could provide additional perspectives. Nonetheless, we give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story does not give any context about alternatives to Reiki for any of the conditions for which it is being used. For the claims that Reiki can “heal broken bones,” the story does mention bone stimulators and spinal fusion surgery, but does not give any context for or perspectives about these alternatives.
The story mentions that Reiki is available at a handful of institutions, but this is insufficient information on availability. How many Reiki practitioners are there around the country, and in what types of settings? Are they licensed or certified? If so, by whom? If not, what does that mean?
The story adequately describes how reiki was developed in Japan and has gained acceptance in the U.S.
Because the story used sources from several different institutions, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.