Table 1.

Study characteristics and mean effect sizes.

Study	Clinical Care Context	Design	Hypnosis Group n	Total n	Hypnotic Suggestibility Scale	Child vs. Adult	r (mean)†
Liossi et al. (2006)	Pediatric procedure, related pain	EMLA* vs. EMLA + hypnosis vs. EMLA + attention	15	45	SHCS	Child	0.49
Liossi & Hatira (2003)	Pediatric oncology	Direct hypnosis + standard vs. Indirect hypnosis + standard vs. Attention control + standard vs. Standard	20 20	80	SHCS	Child	0.76 0.82
Van Dyck & Spinhoven (1997)	Panic disorder with agoraphobia	Exposure vs. Exposure + hypnosis	32	64	SHCS	Adult	0.44
Lang et al. (1996)	Radiological Procedures	Self-hypnosis relaxation vs. Control	16	30	HIP	Adult	0.41
Van Dyck et al. (1991)	Headache	Autogenic training vs. Future oriented hypnotic imagery	27	55	SHCS	Adult	0.22
Moene et al. (2003)	Conversion disorder, motor type	Hypnosis vs. Waiting list	20	44	SHCS	Adult	0.30
ter Kuile et al. (1994)	Headache	Cognitive self-hypnosis vs. Autogenic training vs. Waiting list	40	157	SHCS	Adult	0.30
Lutgendorf et al. (2007)	Invasive medical procedures	Hypnosis vs. Attention vs. Standard	77	241	HIP	Adult	−0.05
Liossi & Hatira (1999)	Bone marrow aspirations	Hypnosis vs. CBT vs. No intervention	10	30	SHCS	Children	0.64
Moene et al. (2002)	Conversion disorder, motor type	Group therapy vs. Group therapy + hypnosis	24	45	SHCS	Adults	0.25

^*EMLA: eutectic mixture of local anesthetics;

^†r (mean): mean correlation between hypnotic suggestibility and outcomes in hypnosis groups