Häuser and coauthors present an overview of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical hypnosis (1). Based on their evaluation of five meta-analyses with at least 400 patients, they conclude that medical hypnosis is an effective and safe complementary method in medical procedures and for irritable bowel syndrome, and that waking suggestions are part of effective communication with patients in routine clinical situations. It is likely that everyone who is convinced of the clinical benefits of medical hypnosis or hypnotherapy will be grateful for this publication.
However, the actual scope of use for hypnosis and hypnotherapy is substantially broader for diseases classified as somatic, psychosomatic, or psychiatric.
This is evident for instance from the publication “Ergebnisse Selbstorganisatorischer Hypnotherapie” (Results of Self-organized Hypnotherapy), which lists 800 hypnotherapeutic treatment cases with catamnesis (2). The following somatic indications for suitability of self-organized hypnotherapy were each cited at least ten times in this list of case reports: severe or morbid obesity, hay fever, asthma, bedwetting, burnout syndrome, migraine, food allergies, food intolerances, smoking cessation, pain control, (chronic) pain disorders, and tinnitus.
Of course, a collection of case reports with a short catamnesis with respect to the level of evidence is not nearly equivalent to meta-analyzes of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in this newly dawning age of individualized medicine (often referred to as “precision medicine”), the importance of individual case reports increases (3). Until one-person studies (“N-of-1 trials”) are actually carried out consistently in routine clinical practice as systematic case studies, and their results aggregated without any major problems with those of other one-person studies (that address the same issues), I believe that a significant proportion of the indications of promising therapeutic approaches in the medical literature will not be adequately addressed.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.
References
- 1.Häuser W, Hagl M, Schmierer A, Hansen E. The efficacy, safety and applications of medical hypnosis—a systematic review of meta-analyses. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113:289–296. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Renartz G, editor. 4. Berlin: 2015. Ergebnisse selbstorganisatorischer Hypnotherapie: Akademie für Autosystemhypnose und Didaktik. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schork NJ. Time for one-person trials: Precision medicine requires a different type of clinical trial that focuses on individual, not average, responses to therapy. Nature. 2015;520:609–611. doi: 10.1038/520609a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]