Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724-5051; Laboratory for the Advances in Consciousness & Health, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
The Institute for Integrative Health, Baltimore, MD; Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, Portland, OR.
Explore (NY). 2014 May-Jun;10(3):150-61. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Feb 24.
Several recent reviews have reached guardedly positive conclusions about the effectivenessof biofield therapies in healthcare.(1,2) These studies mainly involved randomized controlled trials to determine changes in condition-related outcome measures, but few addressed the biological basis of these effects.
We performed a systematic review of studies designed to examine whether biofield therapists undergo physiological changes as they enter the healing state. If reproducible changes can be identified, they may serve as markers to reveal events that correlate with the healing process.
Databases were searched for controlled or non-controlled studies of biofield therapies in which physiological measurements were made on practitioners in a healing state, with or without a healee present. Design and reporting criteria, developed in part to reflect the pilot nature of the included studies, were applied using a yes (1.0), partial (0.5), or no (0) scoring system.
Of 67 identified studies, the inclusion criteria were met by 22, 10 of which involved human healees. Overall, the studies were of moderate to poor quality and many omitted information about the training and experience of the healer. The most frequently measured biomarkers were electroencephalography (EEG) and heart rate variability (HRV). EEG changes were inconsistent and not specific to biofield therapies. HRV results suggest an aroused physiology for Reconnective Healing, Bruyere healing, and Hawaiian healing but no changes were detected for Reiki or Therapeutic Touch.
Despite a decades-long research interest in identifying healing-related biomarkers in biofield healers, little robust evidence of unique physiological changes has emerged to define the healers׳ state.
最近有几项综述对生物场疗法在医疗保健中的有效性得出了谨慎积极的结论。(1,2) 这些研究主要涉及随机对照试验，以确定与病情相关的结果测量的变化，但很少涉及这些影响的生物学基础。
我们对旨在检查生物场治疗师在进入治疗状态时是否会发生生理变化的研究进行了系统回顾。如果可以识别出可重复的变化，它们可能成为揭示与治疗过程相关的事件的标志物。
数据库中搜索了关于生物场疗法的对照或非对照研究，其中对治疗师在治疗状态下进行了生理测量，无论是否有治疗对象在场。设计和报告标准是部分为了反映所包括研究的初步性质而制定的，使用 1.0（是）、0.5（部分是）或 0（否）评分系统进行应用。
在确定的 67 项研究中，有 22 项符合纳入标准，其中 10 项涉及人类治疗对象。总体而言，这些研究的质量为中等至较差，许多研究都省略了治疗师的培训和经验信息。最常测量的生物标志物是脑电图 (EEG) 和心率变异性 (HRV)。脑电图变化不一致，并且不是生物场疗法特有的。HRV 结果表明，再连接疗法、布鲁耶尔疗法和夏威夷疗法会引起生理唤醒，但雷疗法或治疗性触摸则没有检测到变化。
尽管几十年来人们一直对识别生物场治疗师中与治疗相关的生物标志物感兴趣，但很少有确凿的证据表明存在独特的生理变化来定义治疗师的状态。
