Background: Bioenergy treatment devices for self-treatment with the aim to improve well-being are widely available, have become popular, and are used by a rather large number of persons. Yet, a systematic analysis of the assumed effect of these devices has not yet been conducted. We meta-analyzed eight very similar studies of the Healy device to assess the joint effect size. Method: Eight studies with similar designs, some active controlled and some wait-list controlled, testing the Healy bioenergy device, were meta-analyzed. They were conducted by the producer of the device for quality assurance and further development of the application. An additional literature search revealed no additional, independent studies. Result: The overall effect size across studies, combining all active arms and averaging outcome measures, is Hedge’s g = 0.757 (random effects model, I2 = 85.8; z = 6.57; p < 0.0001). The stronger active intervention against control yields a heterogeneous g = 0.825 (random effects, I2 = 82.5; z = 7.77; p < 0.0001). Active treatments against each other result in a significant g = 0.29 (fixed effects, I2 = 0.0; z = 8.34; p < 0.0001). Discussion: The highest effect sizes are produced by a measure of coherence, followed by the WHO5 well-being questionnaire, the Perceived Stress Scale, with the Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile, resulting in the smallest effect size. Heterogeneity can be partially explained by the type of control, with active control producing smaller and wait-list control producing larger outcomes. Another source of heterogeneity is the sequencing of studies. Effect sizes grew for three studies, which were similar, and then fell and remained very similar for the rest of the studies. A limitation of this analysis is the fact that all studies were conducted by the R and D Department of the producer of the device. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, the Healy device showed considerable effects, improving general well-being in healthy individuals. Nonetheless, an independent confirmation of these findings would be desirable. Moreover, the potential mechanisms of effect of the bioenergy device remain unclear, and further studies addressing this research question are warranted.

Keywords:
Healy, Bioenergy, Bioresonance, Well-being, Meta-analysis
1.
Hammerschlag R, Levin M, McCraty R, Bat N, Ives JA, Lutgendorf SK, et al. Biofield physiology: a framework for an emerging discipline. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4(Suppl l):35–41.
2.
Galle M, Walach H. Klassische bioresonanzmethode. In: Walach H, Michael S, Schlett S, editors. Das große Komplementärhandbuch für Apotheker und Ärzte. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018. p. 334–55.
3.
Hammerschlag R, Marx BL, Aickin M. Nontouch biofield therapy: a systematic review of human randomized controlled trials reporting use of only nonphysical contact treatment. J Altern Complement Med. 2014;20(12):881–92.
4.
Jain S, Hammerschlag R, Mills P, Cohen L, Krieger R, Vieten C, et al. Clinical studies of biofield therapies: summary, methodological challenges, and recommendations. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4(Suppl l):58–66.
5.
Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703–17.
6.
Rubik B, Muehsam D, Hammerschlag R, Jain S. Biofield science and healing: history, terminology, and concepts. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4(Suppl l):8–14. gahmj.
7.
Bischof M, Del Giudice E. Communication and the emergence of collective behavior in living organisms: a quantum approach. Mol Biol Int. 2013;2013:987549.
8.
Schmieke M. Quantum entangled frequencies and coherence in bioenergetic systems. Dev Sanskriti Interdis Internat J. 2021;18:10–33.
9.
Walach H, Marmann P. Self-treatment to improve mental and physical health using two bioenergetic devices: a randomized controlled trial. J Psychiatry Psychiatr Disord. 2021;05(04):107–19.
10.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2; 2011.
11.
Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985.
12.
Hedges LV. Fixed effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. Vol. 19. p. 285–99.
13.
Raudenbush SW. Random effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. Vol. 20. p. 301–21.
14.
Shadish WR, Haddock KC. Combining estimates of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. p. 261–81.
15.
Greenhouse JB, Iyengar S. Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. Vol. 24. p. 383–98.
16.
Maas CJM, Hox JJ, Lensvelt-Mulders GJLM. Longitudinal meta-analysis. Quality and Quantity. 2004;38(4):381–9.
17.
World Health Organisation. Mental health - a state of well-being. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
18.
Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76.
19.
Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: a qualitative evaluation of the ‘measure yourself Mmedical outcome profile. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(1):27–36.
20.
Paterson C. Seeking the patient’s perspective: a qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(5):871–81.
21.
Klein EM, Brähler E, Dreier M, Reinecke L, Müller KW, Schmutzer G, et al. The German version of the perceived stress scale – psychometric characteristics in a representative German community sample. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):159.
22.
Kiresuk TJ, Sherman RE. Goal attainment scaling: a general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Ment Health J. 1968;4(6):443–53.
23.
Wampold BE. Humanism as a common factor in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 2012;49(4):445–9.
24.
Wampold BE, Imel ZE. The great psychotherapy debate: the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. London: Routledge; 2015.
25.
Wampold BE, Frost ND, Yulish NE. Placebo effects in psychotherapy: a flawed concept and a contorted history. Psychology Consciousness: Theory, Research, Practice. 2016;3(2):108–20.
26.
Walach H. Der Minderwertigkeitskomplex der Psychotherapie oder die Frage nach dem Placebo: einige Gedanken zur derzeitigen Diskussion. Verhaltenstherapie. 2017;27(1):53–6.
27.
Walach H. Reconstructing the meaning effect - the capacity to self-heal emerges from the placebo concept. Tidsskrift for Forskning i Sygdom og Samfund. 2015;23:111–39.
28.
Schmidt S, Walach H. Making sense in the medical system: placebo, biosemiotics, and the pseudomachine. In: Goli F, editor. Biosemiotic medicine. Studies in neuroscience, consciousness, spirituality. Cham: Springer; 2016. Vol. 5. p. 195–215.
29.
Walach H. The efficacy paradox in randomized controlled trials of CAM and elsewhere: beware of the placebo trap. J Altern Complement Med. 2001;7(3):213–8.
30.
Walach H. Das wirksamkeitsparadox in der Komplementärmedizin. Complement Med Res. 2001;8(4):193–5.
31.
Meissner K, Fässler M, Rücker G, Kleijnen J, Hróbjartsson A, Schneider A, et al. Differential effectiveness of placebo treatments: a systematic review of migraine prophylaxis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):1941–51.
32.
Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, Lewith G, Jonas WB. Circular instead of hierarchical - methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(29):29.
33.
Fonnebo V, Grimsgaard S, Walach H, Ritenbaugh C, Norheim AJ, MacPherson H, et al. Researching complementary and alternative treatments - the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(7):7.
34.
Howick J, Friedemann C, Tsakok M, Watson R, Tsakok T, Thomas J, et al. Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e62599.
35.
Howick J, Koletsi D, Ioannidis JPA, Madigan C, Pandis N, Loef M, et al. Most healthcare interventions tested in cochrane reviews are not effective according to high quality evidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;148:160–9.
36.
Frank JD. Persuasion and healing: a comparative study of psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1961.
37.
Moerman DE. Meaning, medicine, and the “placebo effect”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
38.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155–9.
39.
Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ. Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(11):990–6.
40.
Walach H. Generalized entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of Complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(3):549–59.
41.
Walach H, Kirmse KA, Sedlmeier P, Vogt H, Hinterberger T, Von Lucadou W. Nailing jelly: the replication problem seems to be unsurmountable. Two failed replications of the matrix experiment. J Sci Explor. 2022;35(4):788–828.
42.
Wv L, Römer H, Walach H. Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory. Journal Consciousness Studies. 2007;14(4):50–74.
43.
Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H. Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations Physics. 2002;32(3):379–406.
44.
Walach H, von Stillfried N. Generalised Quantum Theory: basic idea and general intuition: a background story and overview. Axiomathes. 2011;21(2):185–209.
45.
von Lucadou W. Homeopathy and the action of meaning: a theoretical approach. J Sci Explor. 2019;33(2):213–54.
46.
Maier MA, Dechamps MC. Observer effects on quantum randomness: testing micro-psychokinetic effects of smokers on addiction-related stimuli. J Sci Explor. 2018;32(2):265–97.
47.
Maier MA, Dechamps MC, Pflitsch M. Intentional observer effects on quantum randomness: a Bayesian analysis reveals evidence against micro-psychokinesis. Front Psychol. 2018;9(379):379.
48.
Dechamps MC, Maier MA. How smokers change their world and how the world responds: testing the oscillatory nature of micro-psychokinetic observer effects on addiction-related stimuli. J Sci Explor. 2019;33(3):406–34.
49.
Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.