Séance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.

Background: Distant healing, a form of spiritual healing, is widely used for many conditions but little is known about its effectiveness. Methods: In order to evaluate distant healing in patients with a stable chronic condition, we randomised 409 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) from 14 private practices for environmental medicine in Germany and Austria in a two by two factorial design to immediate versus deferred (waiting for 6 months) distant healing. Half the patients were blinded and half knew their treatment allocation. Patients were treated for 6 months and allocated to groups of 3 healers from a pool of 462 healers in 21 European countries with different healing traditions. Change in Mental Health Component Summary (MHCS) score (SF-36) was the primary outcome and Physical Health Component Summary score (PHCS) the secondary outcome. Results: This trial population had very low quality of life and symptom scores at entry. There were no differences over 6 months in post-treatment MHCS scores between the treated and untreated groups. There was a non-significant outcome (p = 0.11) for healing with PHCS (1.11; 95% CI –0.255 to 2.473 at 6 months) and a significant effect (p = 0.027) for blinding; patients who were unblinded became worse during the trial (–1.544; 95% CI –2.913 to –0.176). We found no relevant interaction for blinding among treated patients in MHCS and PHCS. Expectation of treatment and duration of CFS added significantly to the model. Conclusions: In patients with CFS, distant healing appears to have no statistically significant effect on mental and physical health but the expectation of improvement did improve outcome.

Institute for Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene H. Bo ¨sch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) meta-analysis, which demonstrated (a) a small but highly significant overall effect, (b) a small-study effect, and (c) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked widely differing responses. After considering D. B. Wilson and W. R. Shadish's ( 2006) and D. Radin, R. Nelson, Y. Dobyns, and J. Houtkooper's (2006) concerns about the possible effects of psychological moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the difficulties inherent in any meta-analytic data, the authors reaffirm their view that publication bias is the most parsimonious model to account for all 3 findings. However, until compulsory registration of trials occurs, it cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to publication bias, and it remains up to the individual reader to decide how the results are best and most parsimoniously interpreted.

Background: Distant healing as a treatment modality is frequently used by patients and healers. Some preliminary evidence suggests possible effects. Since patients suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome have only few effective treatment options, distant healing will be offered as a treatment within a formal trial of distant healing. Design and Method: A four-armed randomized trial will include 400 patients with self-attributed, environmental problems who fulfil the diagnostic criteria of severe idiopathic chronic fatigue, chronic fatigue syndrome or multiple chemical sensitivity. Patients will be recruited by specialized general practitioners and environmental clinics. They will be treated by healers distributed all over Europe, coming from various healing traditions and nationalities. Each patient will be treated by 3 healers. Healers will have no contact with the patients and will only be provided with the patient’s Christian name and a photograph. The patients will be randomized to one of 4 groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. They will either receive (distant) healing or not, and either know or not know this decision. Thereby the effects of expectation and of time can be disentangled from the specific effects of healing. Outcome Measure: Primary outcome measure will be the mental health summary scale of the MOS SF-36. The measure will be taken at the beginning and at the end of a 6- month treating or waiting period, respectively. A variety of moderator variables will be considered to evaluate which of these may be predictive of outcome.

No abstract