SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2009
Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.
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.
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.
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.
Impact of Hypnosis on the Management of Chronic and Breakthrough Pain of Chronic Dialysis Patients Suffering From Arterial Disease
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Effectiveness of External Use of Bach Flower Remedies on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Pilot Study.Journal of evidence-based complementary & alternative medicine · 2017Trial
- Analysis of Network Pharmacological Efficacy and Therapeutic Effectiveness in Animal Models for Functional Dyspepsia ofNutrients · 2023Article
- Acupuncture-Associated Vasovagal Response: Revised Terminology and Hospital Experience.Medical acupuncture · 2017Article
- Comparison of the Essential Oil Composition of Selected Impatiens Species and Its Antioxidant Activities.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.