Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41217756›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Self-Administered Hypnosis vs Sham Hypnosis for Hot Flashes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Gary Elkins, Noel Arring, Grant Morgan, Tierney Lorenz, Vanessa Muniz, Carrie Lafferty, Katherine Scheffrahn, Cameron Alldredge, Debra Barton

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03572153 (Self-Administered Hypnosis Treatment for the Management of Hot Flashes in Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03572153 nacompletednot on this map

Self-Administered Hypnosis Treatment for the Management of Hot Flashes in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBaylor UniversityRan2019 to 2024Enrolled250ConditionsHot Flashes, Postmenopausal Symptoms, Breast CancerArmsSelf-Administered Hypnosis, Self-Administered White Noise Hypnosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

9 authors.

Gary ElkinsDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Noel ArringCollege of Nursing, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville.
Grant MorganDepartment of Educational Psychology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Tierney LorenzDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln.
Vanessa MunizDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Carrie LaffertyCollege of Nursing, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville.
Katherine ScheffrahnDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Cameron AlldredgeDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Debra BartonCollege of Nursing, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Many women experience significant adverse effects from menopausal hot flashes. Clinical hypnosis has been shown to be an effective and safe nonhormonal treatment for hot flashes, but there is a need to increase the accessibility of this intervention. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a self-administered hypnosis intervention for hot flashes compared with a self-administered sham white noise hypnosis control, evaluate the efficacy of the intervention compared with sham hypnosis for hot flash activity interference and perception of benefit, and examine the interaction between practice adherence and treatment effect. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, 2-arm, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 4, 2019, to February 16, 2024. Participants were 250 postmenopausal women self-reporting a minimum of 4 daily or 28 weekly hot flashes at baseline who were recruited at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Intervention: Participants were randomized into either a 6-week self-administered hypnosis condition or a self-administered sham white noise condition. The hypnotic inductions consisted of cooling imagery and suggestions for relaxation, while the white noise condition was designed to be an active control accounting for all components present in the intervention arm, including placebo and cognitive expectancy effects, without the therapeutic components present in the active arm. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in hot flash score from baseline to 6 weeks, with a 12-week follow-up. The hot flash score (lower scores indicate less frequent and less severe hot flashes) was calculated as a product of the frequency and severity of hot flashes as reported in their daily hot flash diary. Secondary outcomes included hot flash activity interference, measured using the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS; score range, 0-100; lower scores indicate less interference from hot flashes on participants' daily activities, enjoyment, or quality of life), and perception of benefit, measured using the Subject Global Impression of Change. Analysis was conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Participants were 250 women (mean [SD] age, 55.9 [6.9] years) experiencing hot flashes, 62 (24.8%) of whom had a history of breast cancer. Overall improvement in mean (SD) hot flash scores at 6 weeks was greater for participants in the hypnosis group (baseline score, 88.7 [61.3] vs 6-week score, 41.3 [50.8]; 53.4% decrease) than those in the white noise group (baseline score, 94.6 [81.6] vs 6-week score, 55.9 [50.9]; 40.9% decrease; P = .04). The intervention group reported a significantly greater reduction in daily interference from baseline to week 6 (baseline mean [SD] HFRDIS score, 49.3 [22.6] vs 6-week score, 25.0 [22.4]; 49.3% decrease) compared with the control group (baseline mean [SD] HFRDIS score, 47.3 [22.4] vs 6-week score, 29.6 [22.0]; 37.4% decrease) as well as greater perceived benefits (90.3% [93 of 103] vs 64.3% [63 of 98]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the clinical hypnosis group experienced significantly greater reductions of hot flash scores and daily interference from hot flashes compared with the active control condition at week 6. This study suggests that hypnosis delivered through self-administered audio files is a clinically significant and effective method to reduce hot flashes in postmenopausal women. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03572153.

Indexed as

Hot FlashesHypnosisFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41217756
PMCPMC12606380

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.