4.5 Review

Hypnotherapy for insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 719-732

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2015.07.011

关键词

Hypnosis; Hypnotherapy; Hypnotic relaxation; Autogenic training; Guided hypnosis-like imagery; Insomnia; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of hypnotherapy for insomnia as compared to placebo, pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention, or no treatment. Methods: A systematic search on major electronic databases was conducted up until March 2014. Inclusion criteria are: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs; (2) intervention targeted at improving sleep; (3) hypnosis as an intervention; and (4) English language articles. Sleep diary variable is the primary outcome measure. Results: Six RCTs of hypnotherapy and seven on autogenic training or guided imagery, comprising 502 subjects, were included. Eleven of the 13 studies had low methodological quality, as indicated by a modified Jadad score below 3, and high risks of bias in blinding and design of the control interventions. No adverse events related to hypnosis were reported, though seldom investigated. Meta-analyses found hypnotherapy significantly shortened sleep latency compared to waitlist (standardized mean difference, SMD= -0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.56, -0.19, P = 0.01, I-2=15%), but no difference compared to sham intervention (SMD: -1.08,95% CI: -3.15,0.09, P = 0.31,I-2=90%). Similar results were found for autogenic training or guided imagery (SMD with waitlist= -1.16, 95% CI: -1.92, -0.40, P=0.003, I-2 = 0%; SMD with sham intervention = -0.50,95% CI: -1.19, 0.19, P=0.15, I-2 =0%). Conclusions: Generalizability of the positive results is doubtful due to the relatively small sample size and methodological limitations. Future studies with larger sample size and better study design and methodology are called for. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据