Thoroughly tracking the publications of research in healing has become a chore that is beyond my capabilities. There are too many studies being published and i have too little time and limited financial support to do this.

Here is a table from Healing Research, Volume 1 that summarizes 191 randomized controlled studies published up to March, 2000.

See Table IS-4-26 for a summary of all the categories. the following rating system for studies:

I     Excellent study
II    Study lacking in some details
III   Reporting of details is seriously deficient
IV   Critical elements are missing
V    Poorly designed study

Interestingly, the distribution of modestly significant, highly significant, and questionable and/or non-significant studies is fairly similar across the three main categories (I, III, and IV). The discrepancy between the total of 137 studies in the table and the 189 of total experiments is due to my tabulation of the ranking summary by research reports rather than by individual experiments. That is, some of the 137 reports covered more than one experiment, which is reflected in the grand total of 189 experiments.

Research to establish that healing works must be repeatable on a range of subjects, in different settings, under the investigation of different scientists to assure its validity. The following are reports that in my opinion are of high quality, with adequate design, execution and reporting, which demonstrate statistically significant effects (ranks I and II): Barry 1968; Bauman et al. 1986; Braud 1979; 1989/1990a; Braud/Schlitz 1983; 1988; Braud et al. 1979; 1985; Brier et al. 1974; Byrd 1988; Ferguson 1986; Goodrich 1974; Grad 1963; 1964a; 1964b; 1965a/1976; Grad et al. 1961; W. M. Green 1993; Hale 1986; Harris et al 1999; Muehsam et al. 1994; Nash 1982; 1984; Pleass/Dey 1990; Radin et al. 1995; Rebman et al. 1996; Redner, et al. 1991; Rein 1978; 1986; Saklani 1988; 1990; Samarel 1998; Scofield/Hodges 1991; Shealy 1993 et al; Sicher et al. 1998; Slater 1996; Snel/Hol 1983; Solfvin 1982; Watkins/Watkins 1971; Wirth/Cram. (This last study was included, despite the serious question raised about Wirth's research, after discussions with Cram, who assured me he had supervised the entire study and had personally reviewed the data analysis.)

Of the 52 studies in combined categories I and II, 39 (75 percent) demonstrate significant effects. Of these, 26 (50 percent) have a significance level of p < .01 or greater, and 13 (25 percent) have a significance level of p < .02 - .05. Studies that probably belong in categories I and II have been rated as III when I only reviewed them as brief Dissertation and Master's Abstracts.This is ample generic replication of healing research as a treatment.

Helpful hints for searching for further studies published after March, 2000, in the pages summarizing Randomized Controlled Studies and Qualitative Studies of healing.