Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19470153›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2009

Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.

Kylie Thaler, Angela Kaminski, Andrea Chapman, Tessa Langley, Gerald Gartlehner

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02844348 (Impact of Hypnosis on the Management of Chronic and Breakthrough Pain of Chronic Dialysis Patients Suffering From Arterial Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02844348 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Hypnosis on the Management of Chronic and Breakthrough Pain of Chronic Dialysis Patients Suffering From Arterial Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2016 to 2016Enrolled0ConditionsPainArmsHypnosis session
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kylie ThalerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University, Krems, A-3500, Austria. kylie.thaler@donau-uni.ac.at
Angela Kaminski
Andrea Chapman
Tessa Langley
Gerald Gartlehner
Universität für Weiterbildung Krems · ATAustrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For efficacy, we included all prospective studies with a control group. For safety, we also included retrospective, observational studies with more than 30 subjects. Two authors abstracted data and determined risk of bias using a recognised rating system of trial quality.

resultsFour randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two additional retrospective, observational studies were identified and included in the review. Three RCTs of BFRs for students with examination anxiety, and one RCT of BFRs for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no overall benefit in comparison to placebo. Due to the number and quality of the studies the strength of the evidence is low or very low. We did not find any controlled prospective studies regarding the efficacy of BFRs for pain. Only four of the six studies included for safety explicitly reported adverse events.

conclusionMost of the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of BFRs has a high risk of bias. We conclude that, based on the reported adverse events in these six trials, BFRs are probably safe. Few controlled prospective trials of BFRs for psychological problems and pain exist. Our analysis of the four controlled trials of BFRs for examination anxiety and ADHD indicates that there is no evidence of benefit compared with a placebo intervention.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesFlowersPain ManagementAnxietyAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityHumansMental DisordersPlant PreparationsPlantsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPlant Preparations

Identifiers

PMID19470153
PMCPMC2695424
OpenAlexW2151645195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.