CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Pain Management and Placebo EffectPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques

Meta-analytic evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis for mental and somatic health issues: a 20-year perspective

Open access
Rosendahl, Jenny, Alldredge, Cameron T., Haddenhorst, Antonia·2024·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1330238PMC PMC10807512
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: Documented use and investigation of hypnosis spans centuries and its therapeutic use has received endorsement by multiple medical associations. We conducted a comprehensive overview of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of hypnosis to provide a foundational understanding of hypnosis in evidence-based healthcare, insight into the safety of hypnosis interventions, and identification of gaps in the current research literature. Methods: In our systematic review, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of hypnosis in patients with mental or somatic health problems compared to any control condition published after the year 2000 were included. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, HTA Database, Web of Science and a manual search was conducted to identify eligible reviews. Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was rated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Effect estimates on various outcomes including at least three comparisons (k ≥ 3) were extracted and transformed into a common effect size metric (Cohen’s d). If available, information on the certainty of evidence for these outcomes (GRADE assessment) was obtained. Results: We included 49 meta-analyses with 261 distinct primary studies. Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies). There was a considerable overlap of the primary studies across the meta-analyses. Only nine meta-analyses were rated to have high methodological quality. Reported effect sizes comparing hypnosis against control conditions ranged from d = −0.04 to d = 2.72. Of the reported effects, 25.4% were medium (d ≥ 0.5), and 28.8% were large (d ≥ 0.8). Discussion: Our findings underline the potential of hypnosis to positively impact various mental and somatic treatment outcomes, with the largest effects found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents. Future research should focus on the investigation of moderators of efficacy, on comparing hypnosis to established interventions, on the efficacy of hypnosis for children and adolescents, and on identifying patients who do not benefit from hypnosis. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023395514, identifier CRD42023395514

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This overview of 49 meta-analyses found that hypnosis was associated with mostly positive effects across mental and somatic health outcomes, with the largest effects in pain, medical procedures, and children/adolescents. However, primary-study overlap, substantial heterogeneity, and mostly low methodological quality limit firm conclusions.

Key findings

  • Across 49 meta-analyses comprising 261 distinct primary studies, 118 extracted effect sizes ranged from d = −0.04 to d = 2.72; 63.6% were significant, 25.4% were medium (d ≥ 0.5), and 28.8% were large (d ≥ 0.8).
  • The most robust evidence was for patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies); largest effects appeared in children/adolescents, with needle-related pain/distress effects between d = 1.07 and d = 2.53.
  • Only 9 of 49 meta-analyses (18.4%) were rated high methodological quality on AMSTAR 2, while 26 (53.1%) were rated critically low.
  • Safety data were sparse: 8 reviews stated no adverse events/side effects were reported, and the remaining 28 reviews did not include information on hypnosis safety.

Methods

  • Systematic overview of reviews (umbrella review) of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on hypnosis for mental or somatic health problems, published after 2000, compared with any control condition; searches covered MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, HTA Database, Web of Science, and manual searches, with last search 09.03.2023.
  • Included meta-analyses had to report pooled effect estimates based on at least three comparisons (k ≥ 3); 49 meta-analyses were included.
  • Methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2; effect estimates were transformed into Cohen’s d, and GRADE certainty information was extracted when available.

Limitations

  • The paper states substantial overlap of primary studies across reviews, substantial heterogeneity in about two thirds of effects, many effects based on few studies/comparisons and small patient numbers, pooling across passive and active controls, sparse head-to-head comparisons with established interventions, and limited safety reporting.
  • The authors also state review-method limitations: they did not calculate overall effects across estimates because of primary-study overlap, did not include risk of bias within/across primary studies as reported in the meta-analyses, and publication bias was not systematically examined in the included meta-analyses.
  • Evident from the text: only 9 reviews had high AMSTAR 2 quality and most were critically low, and certainty of evidence was reported for only a small number of effects, further limiting confidence in the synthesized findings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1330238

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

33 of 90 cited sources checked · 25 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Only one effect size was large in IBS (abdominal pain; Lee et al., 2014).

    “Only one effect size was large (abdominal pain; Lee et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee et al., 2014 source
  • Study design and conductown data

    The AMSTAR 2 assessment of the included reviews revealed only a few overall quality ratings of high.

    “The assessment of the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR 2 tool (Shea et al., 2017) revealed only a few overall quality ratings of high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shea et al., 2017 source
  • Findingcitation

    The largest effects in medical procedures appeared in populations of children with needle-related pain and distress, with effect sizes between d = 1.07 and d = 2.53.

    “The largest effects appeared in populations of children with needle-related pain and distress (Uman et al., 2006; Birnie et al., 2018), with effect sizes between d = 1.07 and d = 2.53.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Uman et al., 2006 source
    • cites Birnie et al., 2018 source

      The Hypnosis section reports a large effect on self-reported distress in children undergoing needle procedures (SMD −2.53). It does not report d = 1.07 as the other endpoint of the claimed range; the large effect is specifically for hypnosis, not for all interventions studied. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingcitation

    In two primary studies included in the review of Barnes et al. (2019), data on adverse events were reported without revealing any statistically significant difference between the hypnosis and control groups.

    “In two primary studies included in the review of Barnes et al. (2019), data on adverse events were reported without revealing any statistically significant difference between the hypnosis and control groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barnes et al. (2019) source

      The Adverse events section reports adverse-event information from two included studies. It reports no statistically significant difference between hypnosis and relaxation groups only for Dickson-Spillmann 2013; Barkley 1977 reported vomiting in the rapid-smoking group without a comparison between hypnosis and control groups. (LLM, conf=0.93)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingcitation

    High certainty was reported only for two effects (self-reported pain, hypnosis vs. standard care, and vs. attention control; Jong et al., 2020).

    “High certainty was reported only for two effects (self-reported pain, hypnosis vs. standard care, and vs. attention control; Jong et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jong et al., 2020 source
  • May combine two claims. 58
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 43
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A large meta-analysis on hypnosis for pain relief including 3,632 patients across 85 trials concluded that hypnosis is both a safe and effective alternative to pharmaceutical approaches.

    “a large meta-analysis on hypnosis for pain relief which included 3,632 patients across 85 trials concluding that hypnosis is both a safe and effective alternative to pharmaceutical approaches (Thompson et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thompson et al., 2019 source

      The Discussion reports 85 controlled trials with 3,632 participants, but the Introduction specifies that the studies used experimental pain models in healthy participants—not 3,632 patients. The Conclusions say hypnosis may be a potentially effective and safe alternative or adjunct to pharmacological intervention for acute pain, while noting that clinical studies are needed. The claim omits those qualifications and states the conclusion too firmly. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In two reviews of hypnosis in labor and childbirth, two (Madden et al., 2012) or three primary studies (Madden et al., 2016) reported data on any adverse events, but no significant differences between hypnosis and control groups were found.

    “In two reviews of hypnosis in labor and childbirth, there were two (Madden et al., 2012) or three primary studies (Madden et al., 2016) that reported data on any adverse events (i.e., maternal side effects, newborn resuscitation), but no significant differences between hypnosis and control groups were found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Madden et al., 2012 source
    • cites Madden et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Reporting bias in included reviews was assessed using item 15 of the AMSTAR 2 tool.

    “Reporting bias considered in the included reviews (i.e., potential publication bias in the review results) was assessed using item 15 of the AMSTAR 2 tool (Shea et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shea et al., 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The meta-analysis of Noergaard et al. (2019) considered "reduction in adverse events" as an outcome; seven studies reported data, and the pooled effect was in favor of hypnosis but non-significant (RR = 0.61).

    “The meta-analysis of Noergaard et al. (2019) considered “reduction in adverse events” as an outcome. Seven studies reported data, the pooled effect was in favor of hypnosis, but non-significant (RR = 0.61).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Noergaard et al. (2019) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Medium to large effects appeared for mental distress including anxiety in medical procedures, except for one review (Zeng et al., 2022) that reported a small effect.

    “Medium to large effects appeared for mental distress including anxiety, except for one review (Zeng et al., 2022) that reported a small effect (Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zeng et al., 2022 source

      The Preoperative anxiety section reports that hypnosis reduced anxiety before breast cancer surgery (mean difference −2.79; 95% CI −3.93 to −1.65). The paper does not describe this as a small effect or provide an effect-size classification supporting that characterization. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The reporting of this overview was guided by the PRIOR Statement.

    “The reporting of this overview of reviews was guided by the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) Statement (Gates et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gates et al., 2022 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was appraised using AMSTAR 2.

    “Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was appraised and rated using the second edition of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2; Shea et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shea et al., 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Two reviews (Schnur et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2017) found significantly higher mean effect sizes in studies with children than in trials with adult populations, while Flammer and Alladin (2007) did not demonstrate differential effects based on age.

    “Two reviews (Schnur et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2017) found significantly higher mean effect sizes in studies with children than in trials with adult populations, while Flammer and Alladin (2007) did not demonstrate differential effects based on age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Schnur et al., 2008 source
    • cites Chen et al., 2017 source
    • cites Flammer and Alladin (2007) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The only consistent evidence was reported for hypnotizability, which had medium to large positive effects on the outcome of hypnosis and supports findings of a meta-analysis on the impact of hypnotizability in clinical care settings (Montgomery et al., 2011).

    “The only consistent evidence was reported for hypnotizability, which had medium to large positive effects on the outcome of hypnosis and supports findings of a meta-analysis on the impact of hypnotizability in clinical care settings (Montgomery et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Montgomery et al., 2011 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Moderator analyses on the mode of presentation yielded significantly larger effects for live presentations in comparison to audio recorded presentations (Schnur et al., 2008; Kekecs et al., 2014), but this was not the case in two other reviews (Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021).

    “Moderator analyses on the mode of presentation yielded significantly larger effects for live presentations in comparison to audio recorded presentations (Schnur et al., 2008; Kekecs et al., 2014). However, this was not the case in two other reviews (Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Schnur et al., 2008 source
    • cites Kekecs et al., 2014 source
    • cites Tefikow et al., 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Results on the impact of dose on treatment outcome are mixed: two reviews found significant advantages for participants receiving more treatment time (Krouwel et al., 2021; Ramondo et al., 2021), while two other reviews did not yield results to support differential effects based on dose (Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021).

    “Results on the impact of dose on treatment outcome are also mixed. While two reviews found significant advantages for participants receiving more treatment time (Krouwel et al., 2021; Ramondo et al., 2021), two other reviews did not yield results to support differential effects of an intervention based on the dose (brief, medium, long; Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Krouwel et al., 2021 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Ramondo et al., 2021 source
    • cites Tefikow et al., 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    For four effects, the certainty of evidence was rated as low (spontaneous vaginal birth, hypnosis vs. control; Madden et al., 2016; smoking cessation, hypnosis vs. attention-matched behavioral treatments; Barnes et al., 2019; pain intensity follow-up and pain interference with daily activities, hypnosis vs. control; Langlois et al., 2022).

    “For four effects, the certainty of evidence was rated as low (spontaneous vaginal birth, hypnosis vs. control; Madden et al., 2016; smoking cessation, hypnosis vs. attention-matched behavioral treatments; Barnes et al., 2019; pain intensity follow-up and pain interference with daily activities, hypnosis vs. control; Langlois et al., 2022), and for five effects it was judged as very low”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Madden et al., 2016 source
    • cites Barnes et al., 2019 source
    • cites Langlois et al., 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Neither format (hypnosis provided individually vs. in groups) nor setting (inpatients, outpatients, mixed) had an impact on the efficacy of hypnosis.

    “Neither format (hypnosis provided individually vs. in groups; Flammer and Alladin, 2007; Krouwel et al., 2021) nor setting (inpatients, outpatients, mixed; Flammer and Alladin, 2007) had an impact on the efficacy of hypnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Flammer and Alladin, 2007 source
    • cites Krouwel et al., 2021 source

      Krouwel et al. support the format comparison for IBS gastrointestinal symptoms: §3.3.2.3 reports no significant difference between group and individual delivery (p = 0.16), and the Discussion describes group treatment as comparably effective. But §3.3.2.4 reports a significant difference for mental-health outcomes (p = 0.04), so the unqualified claim that format had no impact overstates the findings. The setting comparison is attributed only to Flammer and Alladin, not to Krouwel et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Characteristics of the included primary studies had an influence on the reported effect size of hypnosis: in one review, sample size was significantly and inversely correlated with effect size (Schnur et al., 2008), and another review found significantly larger effects for studies conducted in Europe than in trials conducted in America (Chen et al., 2017).

    “Finally, characteristics of the included primary studies had an influence on the reported effect size of hypnosis. In one review, sample size was significantly and inversely correlated with effect size (Schnur et al., 2008), another review found significantly larger effects for studies conducted in Europe than in trials conducted in America (Chen et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Schnur et al., 2008 source
    • cites Chen et al., 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    An insufficient number of primary studies to run tests for funnel plot asymmetry may explain why publication bias was not systematically examined in the included meta-analyses.

    “Similarly, publication bias was not systematically examined in the included meta-analyses, potentially due to an insufficient number of primary studies to run tests for funnel plot asymmetry (with k < 10 the assessment methods are not very reliable; Dalton et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dalton et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Medical settings are especially conducive for responding to suggestions.

    “Large effects of hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures might be driven by the patient-provider context and the idea that medical settings are especially conducive for responding to suggestions (Cheek, 1962; Varga, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cheek, 1962 source
    • cites Varga, 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Large effects of hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures might be driven by the patient-provider context and the idea that medical settings are especially conducive for responding to suggestions.

    “Large effects of hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures might be driven by the patient-provider context and the idea that medical settings are especially conducive for responding to suggestions (Cheek, 1962; Varga, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cheek, 1962 source
    • cites Varga, 2013 source

      The sections “Special trance state and increased suggestibility” and “Suggestive communication vs. hypnosis” say that patients undergoing medical interventions are highly open to suggestions and that messages from physicians can be especially effective. This supports the proposed context-based explanation, but the paper does not establish that hypnosis has large effects in these patients. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool in most of the included reviews.

    “Internal validity was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (Higgins et al., 2011; Sterne et al., 2019) in most reviews (see Supplementary Table S1), but its impact on the effects was analyzed and reported not consistently in all reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Higgins et al., 2011 source
    • cites Sterne et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Four reviews examined hypnosis for patients with pain (65 primary studies).

    “Twelve reviews (including 79 distinct primary studies) focused on medical procedures (e.g., surgery, needle-related procedures, etc.), five reviews were on labor and childbirth (10 primary studies), four reviews examined hypnosis for patients with pain (65 primary studies), and another five reviews focused on cancer (26 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The largest effects were found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents.

    “Our findings underline the potential of hypnosis to positively impact various mental and somatic treatment outcomes, with the largest effects found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In eight of these reviews, results on the relationship between hypnotizability and outcome were reported.

    “In eight of these reviews, results on the relationship between hypnotizability and outcome were reported (more or less detailed; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Hypnosis was compared against attention control/placebo (31, 63.3%).

    “Hypnosis was compared against various non-active and active control groups, predominantly against treatment as usual control groups (36 meta-analyses, 73.5%), attention control/placebo (31, 63.3%), active control/alternative treatment (17, 34.7%), waitlist control conditions (16, 32.7%), and no treatment control groups (13, 26.5%, see Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Five reviews were on patients with symptoms of mental/psychosomatic disorders (including insomnia; 37 primary studies).

    “We also identified 10 reviews on irritable bowel syndrome (19 primary studies), one review on obesity (16 studies), four reviews on smoking cessation (14 studies), and five were on patients with symptoms of mental/psychosomatic disorders (including insomnia; 37 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Hypnosis was compared against waitlist control conditions (16, 32.7%).

    “Hypnosis was compared against various non-active and active control groups, predominantly against treatment as usual control groups (36 meta-analyses, 73.5%), attention control/placebo (31, 63.3%), active control/alternative treatment (17, 34.7%), waitlist control conditions (16, 32.7%), and no treatment control groups (13, 26.5%, see Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Eight reviews (16.3%) included randomized and non-randomized studies on hypnosis and reported subgroup results for RCTs.

    “Of the 49 reviews, 18 (36.7%) included RCTs on hypnosis only, 23 (46.9%) focused on RCTs on different interventions and reported subgroup results for hypnosis, and eight reviews (16.3%) included randomized and non-randomized studies on hypnosis and reported subgroup results for RCTs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Hypnosis was compared against no treatment control groups (13, 26.5%).

    “Hypnosis was compared against various non-active and active control groups, predominantly against treatment as usual control groups (36 meta-analyses, 73.5%), attention control/placebo (31, 63.3%), active control/alternative treatment (17, 34.7%), waitlist control conditions (16, 32.7%), and no treatment control groups (13, 26.5%, see Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The majority of reviews (n = 32, 65.3%) included adults only.

    “The majority of the reviews (n = 32, 65.3%) included adults only.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Four reviews (8.1%) considered only children and/or adolescents.

    “In four reviews (8.1%), only children and/or adolescents were considered, 11 reviews (22.4%) included patients of all ages, and two reviews did not report information on the age of the study population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Hypnosis was compared against active control/alternative treatment (17, 34.7%).

    “Hypnosis was compared against various non-active and active control groups, predominantly against treatment as usual control groups (36 meta-analyses, 73.5%), attention control/placebo (31, 63.3%), active control/alternative treatment (17, 34.7%), waitlist control conditions (16, 32.7%), and no treatment control groups (13, 26.5%, see Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Four reviews on smoking cessation (14 studies) were identified.

    “We also identified 10 reviews on irritable bowel syndrome (19 primary studies), one review on obesity (16 studies), four reviews on smoking cessation (14 studies), and five were on patients with symptoms of mental/psychosomatic disorders (including insomnia; 37 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the 49 reviews, 18 (36.7%) included RCTs on hypnosis only.

    “Of the 49 reviews, 18 (36.7%) included RCTs on hypnosis only, 23 (46.9%) focused on RCTs on different interventions and reported subgroup results for hypnosis, and eight reviews (16.3%) included randomized and non-randomized studies on hypnosis and reported subgroup results for RCTs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Five reviews were on labor and childbirth (10 primary studies).

    “Twelve reviews (including 79 distinct primary studies) focused on medical procedures (e.g., surgery, needle-related procedures, etc.), five reviews were on labor and childbirth (10 primary studies), four reviews examined hypnosis for patients with pain (65 primary studies), and another five reviews focused on cancer (26 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    One review on obesity (16 studies) was identified.

    “We also identified 10 reviews on irritable bowel syndrome (19 primary studies), one review on obesity (16 studies), four reviews on smoking cessation (14 studies), and five were on patients with symptoms of mental/psychosomatic disorders (including insomnia; 37 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Three comprehensive reviews (112 primary studies) on various disorders were included.

    “Additionally, we included three comprehensive reviews (112 primary studies) on various disorders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Five reviews focused on cancer (26 primary studies).

    “Twelve reviews (including 79 distinct primary studies) focused on medical procedures (e.g., surgery, needle-related procedures, etc.), five reviews were on labor and childbirth (10 primary studies), four reviews examined hypnosis for patients with pain (65 primary studies), and another five reviews focused on cancer (26 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Seventeen reviews provided information on the assessment of hypnotizability within the primary studies.

    “Seventeen reviews provided information on the assessment of hypnotizability within the primary studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Twelve reviews (including 79 distinct primary studies) focused on medical procedures.

    “Twelve reviews (including 79 distinct primary studies) focused on medical procedures (e.g., surgery, needle-related procedures, etc.), five reviews were on labor and childbirth (10 primary studies), four reviews examined hypnosis for patients with pain (65 primary studies), and another five reviews focused on cancer (26 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Two reviews did not report information on the age of the study population.

    “In four reviews (8.1%), only children and/or adolescents were considered, 11 reviews (22.4%) included patients of all ages, and two reviews did not report information on the age of the study population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies).

    “Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The number of patients included in the primary studies of the reviews ranged from 94 to 4,269, with a median of 502 (interquartile range 253 to 1,409).

    “The number of patients included in the primary studies of the reviews ranged from 94 (O’Toole et al., 2016) to 4,269 (Holler et al., 2021), with a median of 502 (interquartile range 253 to 1,409).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Ten reviews on irritable bowel syndrome (19 primary studies) were identified.

    “We also identified 10 reviews on irritable bowel syndrome (19 primary studies), one review on obesity (16 studies), four reviews on smoking cessation (14 studies), and five were on patients with symptoms of mental/psychosomatic disorders (including insomnia; 37 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The number of included hypnosis trials per review ranged from three to 57.

    “The number of included hypnosis trials per review ranged from three (Smith et al., 2003; O’Toole et al., 2016) to 57 (Flammer and Bongartz, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Eleven reviews (22.4%) included patients of all ages.

    “In four reviews (8.1%), only children and/or adolescents were considered, 11 reviews (22.4%) included patients of all ages, and two reviews did not report information on the age of the study population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Seven positive effect sizes (six significant, three each small or medium, one large) were reported for clinical pain, ranging from d = 0.37 to d = 0.81.

    “Seven positive effect sizes (six significant, three each small or medium, one large) were reported, ranging from d = 0.37 to d = 0.81 (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The majority of effects on other birth-related outcomes were (very) small and not significant.

    “The majority of effects on other birth-related outcomes were (very) small and not significant (Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some primary studies were included in many reviews, with Lindfors et al. (2012) in 10 reviews, Moser et al. (2013) and Liossi et al. (2006) in 9 reviews, and Katz et al. (1987), Lang et al. (2000) and Liossi and Hatira (2003) each in 8 reviews.

    “Lindfors et al. (2012) was included in 10 reviews; Moser et al. (2013) and Liossi et al. (2006) were included in 9 reviews, Katz et al. (1987), Lang et al. (2000) and Liossi and Hatira (2003) were each included in 8 reviews (Supplementary Table S2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Six effects were reported for pain intensity, and one review reported results for reduction of sleep problems (d = 0.81; Zech et al., 2017).

    “Six effects were reported for pain (intensity), and one review reported results for the reduction of sleep problems (d = 0.81; Zech et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zech et al., 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Altogether, six effects were reported for smoking cessation, ranging from d = 0.12 to d = 0.84.

    “Altogether, six effects were reported, ranging from d = 0.12 to d = 0.84 (Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effects for mental/psychosomatic symptoms ranged from d = 0.06 to d = 1.58, one effect was small, three were medium, and four were large.

    “The effects ranged from d = 0.06 to d = 1.58, one effect was small, three were medium, and four were large.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The four reported effect sizes for various disorders were significant and ranged from d = 0.25 to d = 1.28; one was small, two medium, and one large.

    “The four reported effect sizes were significant and ranged from d = 0.25 to d = 1.28. One can be regarded as small, two as medium, and another one as large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were based on an average of 9.19 primary studies including an average of 796 patients.

    “Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were based on M = 9.19 primary studies including M = 796 patients”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Range of effects in IBS was from d = 0.02 to d = 0.83, and eight of the 15 effects were significant.

    “Range of effects was from d = 0.02 to d = 0.83, and eight of the 15 effects were significant (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    One review (Schaefert et al., 2014) reported that in one primary study one patient complained of slight dizziness after the first hypnosis session but continued therapy, while in another study one dropout due to a panic attack during a hypnosis session was mentioned.

    “One review (Schaefert et al., 2014) reported, that in one primary study one patient complained of slight dizziness after the first hypnosis session but continued the therapy, while in another study one dropout due to a panic attack during a hypnosis session was mentioned.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schaefert et al., 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two smoking cessation effects fell into the range of small effects, and one each was medium or large.

    “Two effects fell into the range of small effects, and one each was medium or large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Five reviews examined hypnosis in labor and childbirth, reporting 19 effect sizes ranging from d = −0.04 to d = 1.16.

    “Five reviews examined hypnosis in labor and childbirth, reporting 19 effect sizes ranging from d = −0.04 to d = 1.16.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Reviews on patients undergoing medical procedures made up the largest number of our synthesis (n = 12).

    “Reviews on patients undergoing medical procedures made up the largest number of our synthesis (n = 12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All effects for mental/psychosomatic symptoms were significant, except one non-significant null effect on anxiety symptoms when hypnosis in addition to CBT was compared to CBT alone.

    “All effects were significant, except one non-significant null effect on anxiety symptoms when hypnosis in addition to CBT was compared to CBT alone (Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When hypnosis combined with CBT was compared to CBT alone, effects on weight loss were (very) small at post-treatment but increased to significant large effects at follow-up.

    “When hypnosis combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was compared to CBT alone, effects on weight loss were (very) small at post-treatment but increased to significant large effects at follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    We extracted 118 effect sizes from the included reviews.

    “We extracted i = 118 effect sizes from the included reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among labor and childbirth effects, four were small, five medium, and five large.

    “Among the reported effects, four were small, five were medium, and another five were large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    According to Cohen (1992), about one third of the effects (i = 41, 34.7%) can be regarded as small, 25.4% (i = 30) as medium, and 28.8% (i = 34) as large.

    “According to Cohen (1992), about one third of the effects (i = 41, 34.7%) can be regarded as small, 25.4% (i = 30) as medium, and 28.8% (i = 34) as large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen (1992) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In labor and childbirth, 18 effect sizes were positive, but only four proved to be significant.

    “Eighteen effect sizes were positive, but only four proved to be significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Results on the impact of participants' sex on hypnosis efficacy are mixed: one review reported significantly larger effects for mixed-sex compared to female-only populations (Chen et al., 2017), while another could not find any differences (Flammer and Alladin, 2007).

    “Results on the impact of participants’ sex is mixed. One review reported significantly larger effects for studies with participants of mixed-sex compared to female-only populations (Chen et al., 2017). In contrast, another review could not find any differences between subgroups (male, female, mixed; Flammer and Alladin, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2017 source
    • cites Flammer and Alladin, 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In the review of Lam et al. (2015), only one study reported the incidence of adverse events, which was seen in the control group receiving zolpidem.

    “In the review of Lam et al. (2015), only one study reported the incidence of adverse events, which was seen in the control group receiving zolpidem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. (2015) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In reviews on medical procedures, 28 effect sizes were significant, 17 small, five medium, and nine large.

    “28 effect sizes were significant, 17 can be interpreted as small, five as medium, and nine as large effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In cancer patients, nine effects were significant (no information on significance of remaining two), one each can be interpreted as small or medium, and nine effects were large (including all effects on pain and anxiety).

    “Nine effects were significant (no information on the significance of the remaining two effects), one each can be interpreted as small or medium, and nine effects were large (including all effects on pain and anxiety; Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We included two reviews focusing on obesity reporting six effect sizes (range d = 0.09 to d = 1.58).

    “We included two reviews focusing on obesity reporting six effect sizes (range d = 0.09 to d = 1.58; Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Homogeneously across all reviews, (very) small effects were seen for physiological parameters, procedure time, and recovery.

    “Homogeneously across all reviews, (very) small effects were seen for physiological parameters, procedure time, and recovery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Chen et al. (2017), significantly larger effects were found in studies with hematological malignancy than in trials with patients suffering from a solid tumor and for studies with procedure-related stressors compared to no such stressors.

    “In the review of Chen et al. (2017), significantly larger effects were found in studies with hematological malignancy than in trials with patients suffering from a solid tumor and for studies with procedure-related stressors compared to no such stressors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al. (2017) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Hypnosis was significantly more effective when it combined therapist delivery with self-hypnosis compared to self-hypnosis only (Chen et al., 2017), and hypnosis interventions had significantly larger effects when incorporating self-hypnosis than when self-hypnosis was not included (Milling et al., 2018).

    “Hypnosis was significantly more effective when it combined therapist delivery with self-hypnosis compared to self-hypnosis only (Chen et al., 2017) and hypnosis interventions had significantly larger effects when incorporating self-hypnosis than when self-hypnosis was not included (Milling et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2017 source
    • cites Milling et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In reviews including patients undergoing surgery, neither effects of anesthesia (local, general; Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021), nor type of surgery (diagnostic procedure vs. other, Kekecs et al., 2014; Holler et al., 2021) could be found.

    “In reviews including patients undergoing surgery, neither effects of anesthesia (local, general; Tefikow et al., 2013; Holler et al., 2021), nor type of surgery (diagnostic procedure vs. other, Kekecs et al., 2014; Holler et al., 2021) could be found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tefikow et al., 2013 source
    • cites Holler et al., 2021 source
    • cites Kekecs et al., 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Through a comprehensive search in relevant databases, we identified 49 meta-analyses which were comprised of 261 distinct randomized controlled trials.

    “Through a comprehensive search in relevant databases, we identified 49 meta-analyses which were comprised of 261 distinct randomized controlled trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Two reviews examined the impact of hypnotizability on treatment outcome, reporting medium (r = 0.31, Flammer and Alladin, 2007; r = 0.44; Flammer and Bongartz, 2003) and large correlations (r = 0.53; Milling et al., 2021) between hypnotizability and outcome.

    “Two reviews examined the impact of hypnotizability on treatment outcome, reporting medium (r = 0.31, Flammer and Alladin, 2007; r = 0.44; Flammer and Bongartz, 2003) and large correlations (r = 0.53; Milling et al., 2021) between hypnotizability and outcome.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Flammer and Alladin, 2007 source
    • cites Flammer and Bongartz, 2003 source
    • cites Milling et al., 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In the review of Flammer and Alladin (2007), type of hypnosis was demonstrated to be a moderator variable; "Modern hypnosis" was significantly more effective than classical hypnosis and mixed-forms of hypnosis.

    “In the review of Flammer and Alladin (2007), type of hypnosis was demonstrated to be a moderator variable. “Modern hypnosis” was significantly more effective than classical hypnosis and mixed-forms of hypnosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Flammer and Alladin (2007) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hypnosis interventions were examined for various mental and somatic health concerns and included adult populations as well as children and adolescents.

    “Hypnosis interventions were examined for various mental and somatic health concerns and included adult populations as well as children and adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    More than half of the results were at least of medium effect size, and only one negative effect was reported (in fact, it was a null effect; d = −0.04).

    “Specifically, more than half of the results were at least of medium effect size, and only one negative effect was reported (in fact, it was a null effect; d = −0.04).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    While most of the included meta-analyses did not involve a sufficient number of primary studies to allow for moderator analyses (Hedges and Pigott, 2004), nine meta-analyses investigated the impact of patient, intervention, and control group characteristics on the outcome of hypnosis.

    “While most of the included meta-analyses did not involve a sufficient number of primary studies to allow for moderator analyses (Hedges and Pigott, 2004), nine meta-analyses investigated the impact of patient, intervention, and control group characteristics on the outcome of hypnosis (Flammer and Bongartz, 2003; Flammer and Alladin, 2007; Schnur et al., 2008; Tefikow et al., 2013; Kekecs et al., 2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hedges and Pigott, 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Hypnosis revealed the largest effects in children or adolescents, for pain, and for patients undergoing medical procedures.

    “Hypnosis revealed the largest effects in children and for patients undergoing medical procedures.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “Notably, the largest effects were found when hypnosis was used with child/adolescent patient populations, to treat pain, and to aid medical procedures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In a considerable number of meta-analyses, the number of studies included is low, and the number of patients per study is also low.

    “Third, not only is the number of studies included in a considerable number of meta-analyses low, but also the number of patients per study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The NCCIH issued three funding opportunity announcements for mind-body intervention trials and identified hypnotherapy as a treatment approach with "high programmatic priority".

    “the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) issued three funding opportunity announcements for mind-body intervention trials, and identified hypnotherapy as a treatment approach with “high programmatic priority” (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 2021a,b,c).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 2021a,b,c

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A past systematic review of meta-analyses (Häuser et al., 2016) found robust evidence for the use of hypnosis to reduce pain, emotional distress, duration of medical interventions, medication use, and symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome.

    “A past systematic review of meta-analyses (Häuser et al., 2016) highlighted the safety and efficacy of hypnosis within medicine and found robust evidence for the use of hypnosis to reduce pain, emotional distress, duration of medical interventions, medication use, and symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Häuser et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The NCCIH recognizes evidence for the efficacy of hypnosis in the treatment of IBS, chronic pain, PTSD, and hot flashes.

    “The NCCIH recognizes evidence for the efficacy of hypnosis in the treatment of IBS, chronic pain, PTSD, and hot flashes (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A 2018 analysis of frequencies of adverse events in registered clinical trials reported zero report of a serious adverse event attributable to hypnosis and a rate of "other adverse events" of 0.47% across 429 participants.

    “a 2018 analysis of frequencies of adverse events in registered clinical trials which reported that there was zero report of a serious adverse event attributable to hypnosis and that the rate of “other adverse events” was 0.47% across 429 participants included in the studies (Bollinger, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bollinger, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The search was validated by verifying whether all trials reported in comprehensive yearly reviews of published meta-analyses and RCTs on the effectiveness of clinical hypnosis and hypnotherapy (published 2014-2021 in the German journal "Hypnose-ZHH" by Maria Hagl) were included.

    “Further, we validated our search by verifying whether all trials reported in comprehensive yearly reviews of published meta-analyses and RCTs on the effectiveness of clinical hypnosis and hypnotherapy (published 2014–2021 in the German journal “Hypnose-ZHH” by Maria Hagl) were included.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of the low quality reviews, nine did not provide a list of excluded studies and justified the exclusions, three did not assess publication bias and discuss its likely impact, and one did not register an a-priori review protocol.

    “Of these low quality reviews, nine did not provide a list of excluded studies and justified the exclusions, three did not assess the presence of a publication bias and discuss its likely impact on the results, and one review did not register an a-priori review protocol.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data selection and coding were realized by two independent raters, with disagreements resolved by consensus discussion and a third researcher consulted when necessary.

    “Data selection and coding were realized by two independent raters (AH and JR). Disagreements were resolved by consensus discussion. When necessary, a third researcher (CA) was consulted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The literature search was comprehensive.

    “A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register), Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science (science and social science citation index).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The methodological quality of nine reviews (18.4%, including three of four reviews on smoking cessation) was judged as high, indicating no weaknesses in critical domains.

    “The methodological quality of nine reviews (18.4%, including three of four reviews on smoking cessation) was judged as high, indicating no weaknesses in critical domains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The review protocol was registered a priori in PROSPERO (CRD42023395514).

    “According to our a-priori review protocol (PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number CRD42023395514), we considered the inclusion of meta-analyses synthesizing results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, in addition to those reporting effects of RCTs in subgroup analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites CRD42023395514

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Overall, the moderator analyses tested a variety of potential impact factors but revealed mixed results.

    “Overall, the moderator analyses tested a variety of potential impact factors but revealed mixed results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The substantial heterogeneity of primary study results clearly limits the generalizability of the findings and points to the need of exploring the variance in results via moderator analyses.

    “which clearly limits the generalizability of the findings and points to the need of exploring the variance in results via moderator analyses (Thompson, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thompson, 1994 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The largest effects were seen for hypnosis in populations of children/adolescents, however, only four reviews focused on the efficacy of hypnosis specifically in children and/or adolescents.

    “The largest effects were seen for hypnosis in populations of children/adolescents, however, only four reviews focused on the efficacy of hypnosis specifically in children and/or adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The most robust evidence was demonstrated in studies involving patients undergoing medical procedures with 12 reviews including 79 distinct primary studies, and in patients with pain (four reviews, 65 primary studies).

    “The most robust evidence was demonstrated in studies involving patients undergoing medical procedures with 12 reviews including 79 distinct primary studies, and in patients with pain (four reviews, 65 primary studies).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A low number of studies or comparisons negatively impacts the precision of meta-analytic results and the possibility to examine moderator effects.

    “Third, a considerable number of effects is based on a very low number of studies/comparisons which negatively impacts the precision of the meta-analytic results (Brand and Bradley, 2016) and the possibility to examine moderator effects (Hedges and Pigott, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brand and Bradley, 2016 source
    • cites Hedges and Pigott, 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The substantial heterogeneity of findings makes it difficult to draw general conclusions and make clear recommendations for clinical practice.

    “Second, heterogeneity of findings across the primary studies in the included reviews is mostly substantial, rendering it difficult to draw general conclusions and make clear recommendations for clinical practice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Meta-analysis enhances the precision of single studies by combining multiple findings to generate a pooled estimate.

    “On the one hand, meta-analysis is advantageous in enhancing the precision of single studies by combining multiple findings to generate a pooled estimate (Finckh and Tramèr, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Finckh and Tramèr, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Children and adolescents are often viewed as having higher average hypnotic ability than adults.

    “Because children and adolescents are often viewed as having higher average hypnotic ability than that of adults, it seems sensible that younger patients with mental or somatic health issues may be more responsive to hypnotic suggestions than adult patients (Accardi and Milling, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Accardi and Milling, 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The overview did not include the risk of bias within and across the primary studies as reported in the meta-analyses.

    “We further did not include the risk of bias within and across the primary studies as reported in the meta-analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
98 of 98

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The generalized efficacy of hypnosis for various mental and somatic concerns is not clearly understood.

    “While there is extensive evidence regarding the efficacy of hypnosis for various mental and somatic concerns, its generalized efficacy is not clearly understood.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This is the first overview of meta-analyses that summarizes relevant findings for clinical hypnosis.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first overview of meta-analyses that summarizes relevant findings for clinical hypnosis.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Clinical hypnosis is usually applied as a low-dose intervention.

    “Taking into account that clinical hypnosis is usually applied as a low-dose intervention, the results are promising.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Comprehensive evidence on both benefits and harms is essential to make a balanced decision about the use of hypnosis.

    “To make a balanced decision about the use of hypnosis, it is essential to have comprehensive evidence on both benefits and harms.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SmartACT likely operates through complementary pathways-top-down regulation (ACT), sensorimotor simulation (imagery), and autonomic/attentional tuning (hypnosis)-to yield concurrent gains in motor efficiency and reductions in psychosomatic distress.

    “Within this framework, SmartACT likely operates through complementary pathways—top-down regulation (ACT), sensorimotor simulation (imagery), and autonomic/attentional tuning (hypnosis)—to yield concurrent gains in motor efficiency and reductions in psychosomatic distress [44,49,50,51,58,59,60,61,62,74,75,76].”

    From Effects of the SmartACT Intervention on Motor and Psychological Variables in Adolescent Athletes: A Controlled Trial Using BlazePod and Microgate. (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • IBS effect-size categories exceed the stated number of effects

    Minor

    The stated counts of small, medium, and large effects total 20, but the section says there were 15 effects.

    Reported 15 · recomputed 20

  • Two hypnotizability reviews claimed, but three are named

    Minor

    The sentence says two reviews examined hypnotizability's impact on treatment outcome, then attributes correlations to three distinct reviews: Flammer and Alladin, Flammer and Bongartz, and Milling et al.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 1955, Medical use of hypnotism: report of a subcommittee appointed by the Psychological Medicine Group Committee of the British Medical Association, Br. Med. J., 23, 190

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rosendahl, J., Alldredge, C. T., & Haddenhorst, A.
Affiliations
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • Baylor University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosendahl, Jenny
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2024-01-08
Volume
14
Pages
1330238-1330238
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1330238
PMC
PMC10807512
OpenAlex
W4390665574
Semantic Scholar
1607a4d0b5caee23e69163f393e0541a927dddb0
Cited by
56
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 12
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Common Library Network (Der Gemeinsame Bibliotheksverbund) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Keywords
hypnosis, hypnotherapy, treatment efficacy, pain management, medical procedures, mental health, physical health, children and adolescents, quality of evidence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-15.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-15.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review