REVIEW Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 16(2) June 2011 106–109 © 2011 The Authors FACT © 2011 Royal Pharmaceutical Society DOI 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2011.01085.x ISSN 1465-3573 An independent review of studies of ‘energy medicine’ funded by the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Edzard Ernst, Robert Seip Abstract The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has frequently been criticised for funding research that is less than rigorous. Our aim was to review NCCAM-funded clinical trials of ‘energy medicine’. We searched MEDLINE to locate all NCCAM-funded studies of energy medicine. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to predefined criteria. Five RCTs were identified. Those with a low risk of bias showed no effect beyond placebo. Testing implausible treatments in clinical trials is wasteful and perhaps even detrimental. Keywords Healing • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine • qigong • reiki • review Introduction The National Center for Complementary and Alter- native Medicine (NCCAM) grew out of the US Office of Alternative Medicine, which was founded in 1992. 1 As an NIH centre, NCCAM enjoys an autonomy similar to that of NIH’s other institutes and centers. 2 From the beginning, a key aim of the centre was to conduct clinical research into CAM ‘with strict scientific rigour’; 3 a major emphasis was put on clinical trials. Over time, NCCAM’s budget has steadily risen from US$50 million in 1999 to US$128.8 million in 2010. 4 Historically, 70–80% of this money has been invested in clinical trials. 1 The strategy of conducting trials of biologically implausible interventions has been challenged repeatedly. Critics have argued that some of the studies funded by NCCAM are ‘of dubious merit’ 1 and that an independent review of the centre is urgently needed. 5,6 The former director of NCCAM, however, countered this argument, stating that ‘NCCAM was created to foster and build a research enterprise that subjects complementary and alternative medicine to open-minded, hypothesis driven investigation’. 7 The NCCAM’s strategic plan for 2005–2009 specifi- cally addresses the centre’s approach to the study of ‘energy medicine’, stating that it is their intention to apply ‘. . . the same standards used in designing experiments in physics, chemistry, and other scien- tific disciplines’. 4 Whether this has eventuated is unclear. Thus, the aim of this article is to review the evidence generated by NCCAM-funded RCTs in the field of energy medicine. Methods The search term ‘AT [gr]’ or ‘NCCAM[gr]’ (provided by the NCCAM website) was used to identify all RCTs sponsored by NCCAM and reported in MEDLINE. The search was limited to ‘Clinical Trial’, ‘Random- ized Controlled Trial’, ‘Clinical Trial, Phase I’ ‘Clinical Trial, Phase II’, ‘Clinical Trial, Phase III’, ‘Clinical Trial, Phase IV’ and ‘Controlled Clinical Trial’. From 106