Letter to the Editor Concerning “Efficacy of Facilitated Tucking Position and Reiki Given to Preterm Infants During Orogastric Tube Insertion: A Randomised Controlled Trial”

Abstract

I am writing concerning the paper ‘Efficacy of facilitated tucking position and Reiki given to preterm infants during orogastric tube insertion: A randomised controlled trial’ [1]. I am addressing only aspects of this paper dealing with reiki.

Proponents of reiki claim that in reiki, some form of ‘universal life energy’ flows from the practitioner to the patient to bring about beneficial effects. Kurt Sezer et al. [1] stated that ‘Reiki, therapeutic touch and good touch are defined as practices that regulate, strengthen, and balance energy fields with or without touching with the hands, which are used to heal the existing energy fields of human beings by helping other people’. However, the existence of such ‘energy’ that can be transmitted or ‘energy field’ that can be manipulated is not accepted by mainstream science.

Reiki has encountered a great deal of scepticism in the scientific community. For example, Dr. Edzard Ernst, the most accomplished researcher and research critic in the field of complementary and alternative medicine, wrote: ‘Amongst all the many forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), Reiki is perhaps the most ridiculous scam’ [2]. Dr. Stephen Barrett, another expert, wrote, ‘Reiki has no substantiated health value and lacks a scientifically plausible rationale’ [3]. Dr. Steven Novella wrote, ‘We now have at least a century of scientific research that has failed to find any clue that such a mysterious life force or life energy exists. It cannot be detected, measured or confirmed in any way’ [4].

Kurt Sezer et al. [1] did not mention the lack of credibility of reiki among scientists, or even suggest that reiki is at all controversial. The paper would have been improved by including a discussion of this point.

While reiki is sometimes administered without touching, in this case it was performed entirely by placing the heated palms on ‘the soles of the feet, head, and stomach area’. Infants in the control group did not receive this treatment. The warm touch likely had a calming effect on the infants in the reiki group independent of any putative effects on their ‘energy fields’. The authors should have discussed this as a possible explanation of their findings. I suggest that in future studies the authors include a control group employing identical touch treatment but omitting any intent to manipulate ‘energy’.

The extent of blinding of the study was not clear. It was described as single-blind, and it was stated that ‘single blinding was applied by blinding the parents and infants’. However, parents did not appear to be involved in making assessments, and the infants would have been aware of whether they were being touched. It appears that the researchers (who collected most of the data) were not blinded, which could have introduced some bias in the subjective assessments. Scores at the end of the procedure were determined ‘by a clinic nurse independent of the study’; it was not stated if this person was blinded. The paper would have been improved by discussing possible bias in evaluation as one of the limitations of the study. I suggest that in future studies the authors ensure that researchers collecting data are blinded as much as possible.

I welcome a response to my points from the authors.

The author has nothing to report.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.