What we've corrected, in the open.

A Chinese-language trial held back pending method confirmation (July 16). A reviewer noted that one catalogued trial's title used a method name ("Emotional Release Therapy") that is also the name of an unrelated, non-tapping modality. The Chinese term in the original title is the standard rendering of EFT, but our verification of that record had confirmed its bibliographic details, not that the intervention procedure was acupoint tapping. Until the methods section is confirmed to describe tapping, the record is held off the browsable pages. Empty is always preferred over uncertain.

SEFT labelled as a related method (July 16). A reviewer pointed out an inconsistency: the directory labelled Thought Field Therapy studies as a related method but folded SEFT — an EFT-derived protocol developed in Indonesia whose setup statement uses prayer in place of EFT's standard self-acceptance phrasing — into plain "EFT." The field's own flagship review of Clinical EFT (Church et al., 2022) excludes both methods by name, so we now label both the same way: 22 SEFT studies carry a related-method badge on their cards, the search page can filter by method, and related-method dots on the effect-size charts are marked. No counts changed; this is labelling, not exclusion.

Real paper titles restored (July 16). A reviewer pointed out that some study pages showed a descriptive label instead of the paper's actual title. Those records exist because we split some papers into one record per measured outcome, and the split records had been given working titles naming the outcome and the meta-analysis they were tabulated from. Where the paper is identified, its real published title now leads and the working title is kept underneath as provenance. A handful of studies are known to us only from a meta-analysis's tables; those keep a descriptive title and now say so plainly.

Newly published studies added (July 16). Ongoing monitoring of the literature added eight Tapping studies published or indexed in 2025–2026. The strongest are a network meta-analysis pooling seventeen randomized trials of Clinical EFT for stress across both self-report and biological measures, and two women's-health randomized controlled trials — one on premenstrual syndrome and one on endometriosis pelvic pain that used an active breathing-exercise control rather than a waitlist. The rest cover post-surgical pain, critical-care nurse burnout, online versus in-person group delivery, and a mechanisms framework. Two of the new randomized trials were added with their effect size left blank: their abstracts confirm the design and a significant result, but the group means needed to compute a controlled effect sit behind a paywall we couldn't verify through, so the number is marked pending rather than estimated. Only one addition carried a between-group effect we could compute from the paper's own reported means and standard deviations; the endometriosis trial's headline statistic is a repeated-measures interaction that cannot honestly be converted into a controlled effect size without a figure the abstract omits, so it is recorded but kept out of the pooled forest plots. One very small non-randomized pilot was held back for review rather than published to the browsable pages.

A retracted paper held back (July 10). A sweep of the medical literature's official correction notices found that a 2001 Thought Field Therapy paper in our collection — on heart rate variability as a clinical outcome measure — had its conclusions formally retracted by its own lead author in 2005, who wrote that the original conclusions should not be relied upon. Our record presented the paper's findings without that caveat. It has been removed from the browsable pages (kept in the full downloadable dataset, flagged with the retraction), and the Thought Field Therapy study count adjusted accordingly. Two smaller fixes from the same sweep: a missing DOI was added to a Korean trial whose published corrigendum we already noted, and a wrong link on our record of the 2020 veterans-PTSD corrigendum now points to the corrigendum itself.

Hand-typed numbers retired (July 10). A pre-launch review found four pages still carrying counts typed by hand that had drifted out of date as the corrections below moved the underlying data — the search page claimed 466 records while listing 411, the press kit said "more than 100" randomized controlled trials against the computed 98, and the condition summaries on the evidence-based and research pages carried stale per-condition tallies. All of those numbers are now generated from the dataset at build time, so they cannot drift again. The same pass fixed three malformed DOI links (two Energy Psychology Journal DOIs with a mis-punctuated prefix, and one publisher-supplied identifier that was never a real DOI — that record now links to its verified full text instead) and added a note to the press kit on how to read large pooled effect sizes from waitlist-controlled, self-reported trials.

One paper, one count (July 9). The dataset intentionally splits some papers into several outcome-specific records (a trial that measured both PTSD and depression appears once under each). A second audit pass found that when several of those records carried the same condition tag, that condition's headline counted one paper more than once. Study, trial, and participant counts are now computed per unique paper: as of that pass, PTSD's randomized-trial count corrected from 35 to 27, anxiety's from 55 to 54, and depression's from 36 to 34 (later corrections have moved some of these further — the live condition pages are always current), and the site-wide totals from 467 studies / 124 RCTs to 402 unique publications / 98 RCTs. Duplicate records (the same trial catalogued twice) were also merged wherever found — a college-depression RCT entered twice, a postmenopausal-depression trial published as both a journal article and a conference abstract, a Korean students' review catalogued three times, and more — bringing the duplicate tally to 38. Smaller numbers, honestly counted.

Effect sizes transcribed from source (July 9). Most records listed a study but no comparable effect size. We began reading the primary papers to add the between-group effect size (tapping vs. a comparison group) for each trial's main outcome, computing it from the paper's own reported means and standard deviations where it wasn't stated directly, and leaving it blank wherever the paper reported only a within-group change, only a p-value, or sat behind a paywall we couldn't verify through. Nothing was estimated or carried over from a secondary summary. During this work a mis-entered DOI was also corrected, and a childbirth-fear trial whose figures had been accidentally copied from a different study was caught and flagged for re-checking.

"Randomized" checked against the methods (July 9). We re-read the methods section of studies the dataset had labelled as randomized controlled trials and reclassified the ones that were not: several were quasi-experimental (a control group, but participants were not randomly allocated to it), and a handful were single-arm studies with no comparison group at all. A couple of these are large sources — a "randomized" label was corrected to "outcome study" where a paper described a one-group before-and-after design or two cohorts that both received tapping. We also removed a registered trial protocol that has no results yet. The strict site-wide randomized-controlled-trial count moved from 112 to 108 as a result, and several per-condition trial counts came down accordingly. The studies are all still here and still counted as studies — they're just labelled for what they actually are.

Geography corrected (July 9). The explore page said 53% of studies were run outside the United States; counted honestly over the studies whose country of origin is known, the figure is 65%. Records whose country we could not confirm are left out of that percentage rather than assumed non-US. The "43 countries" count also mixed two spellings of one country and several multi-country entries — the corrected count of distinct countries is 41.

Real-world app numbers re-verified (July 9). The "in the app" session counts on the condition pages were re-checked against the app's live public catalog. Several were wrong in both directions — weight & food cravings said 3 sessions when the app has 27; phobias said 13 when the app has 36; depression said 34 when only about 14 are on-topic; cancer & serious illness said 45 where an honest count of genuinely serious-illness sessions is about 28. All counts and descriptions were corrected to match the actual catalog.

Labels tightened (July 9). The "APA efficacy criteria" tile is now shown only on clinical psychological conditions, where the American Psychological Association's empirically-supported-treatment framework actually applies — not on weight, athletic performance, biology/mechanisms, or catch-all categories. A superseded pre-correction meta-analysis value was removed from the mechanisms chart in favor of its published corrigendum; two uncontrolled PTSD-outcome data points were removed from the anxiety chart, whose caption promises controlled comparisons; and two "typical effect" tiles that rested on a single or off-topic value were corrected (pain now shows "—" until a pain-outcome comparison effect is available).

Inflated effect sizes, corrected. Several effect sizes had been carried over from secondary sources as if they were a treatment's advantage over a control group, when the primary paper actually reported a within-group before-and-after change (a larger, less meaningful number). Where the primary paper published a correction (a corrigendum), we show the corrected figure and note that the original was revised.

Duplicate studies merged. 38 records turned out to be the same study catalogued twice — often once from a direct source and once from a meta-analysis table, sometimes with slightly different numbers. We kept the best-sourced version of each and removed the rest so no single study is counted more than once. The removed records remain in the complete downloadable JSON dataset, tagged as duplicates, for full transparency.

Scope tightened to EFT and TFT only (July 9). This directory is for Emotional Freedom Techniques (Tapping) and Thought Field Therapy. A sweep found a number of records whose intervention was actually a different method — Advanced Integrative Therapy (AIT), WHEE, a distant-biofield energy- healing trial, energy-medicine and prana/koshas theory pieces, a Havening-based framework, a practitioner survey, and broad "touch therapy" reviews where Tapping was one of many modalities. Several were mis-labelled as "EFT" in the data. All have been removed from the browsable pages (kept in the complete downloadable JSON dataset, flagged as out of scope). Head-to-head trials that test EFT against another method, and tapping-based techniques such as Matrix Reimprinting, were kept.

Theory and commentary re-checked for scope (July 9). A pass over the review and commentary records flagged several that were about "energy" or "psychological energy" as a broad idea rather than about Tapping specifically — a history-of-psychology essay on psychological energy in the analytic tradition, a theoretical "psychological energy" review, a subtle-energy healing method distinct from Tapping, a broad energy-psychology-modalities theory piece that also covers chakra and intention-based work, an essay on hindrances in intensive meditation practice, and a psychometric scale-validation study with no Tapping content at all. These were removed from the browsable pages (kept in the complete downloadable JSON dataset, flagged as out of scope). Reviews and mechanism papers that are genuinely about EFT or TFT were kept.

Primary studies re-checked for scope and condition tags (July 9). A record-by-record pass over the individual trials, outcome studies, and case reports caught a handful whose intervention was actually a different method wearing an "EFT" label — a Healing-from-the-Body-Level-Up case, a Heart Assisted Therapy pilot, an "over-energy-correction" breathing study, an applied-kinesiology muscle-testing paper, a diagnostic energy-testing report, and two multi-technique protocols not identifiable as EFT or TFT. Those were removed from the browsable pages (kept in the dataset, flagged out of scope). The same pass corrected condition tags that described a study's population rather than what it measured — for example a trauma-population case tagged as a physical-health study when only psychological outcomes were recorded — added tags where a study measured an outcome that wasn't listed (a cortisol or brain-imaging measure that justified a "biology/mechanism" tag, a pain score that was actually recorded), relabelled two trials whose methods sections didn't match their "randomized" label, and merged a teen-eating study that had been entered twice under two IDs.

Meta-analysis figures re-verified against source (July 9). Every pooled meta-analysis figure was checked back against its primary paper. All were accurate and none were mis-transcribed. Broad network meta-analyses that include tapping only as one arm among many different therapies are kept in the corpus but held out of the clinician one-page summaries, so no headline number leans on a pooled result that wasn't specifically about Tapping.

Study types labelled honestly. A meta-analysis is not a study; a review is not a trial; an n=1 case report is not a randomized controlled trial. We corrected records whose design label overstated what was actually done, and the headline count now reads "studies and reviews" rather than implying every entry is a primary study.

Claims matched to what was measured. Where a page credited a hard physiological outcome (like blood pressure) that a study didn't actually find significant, or a pooled effect was described as covering a whole condition when it only measured one symptom, we corrected the text to match the real result.

An implausible outlier removed, a superseded analysis retired (July 9). A programmatic sweep of the whole dataset flagged the rest. One PTSD record carried a derived effect size of d=8.07 — far above the d=3.0 ceiling this site excludes everywhere else — and turned out to be a second copy of a study already listed; it was merged into the primary record. A dismantling meta-analysis that had since been corrected by a published corrigendum was retired in favour of the corrected version, so one analysis isn't counted twice. A couple of journal review articles mis-filed as "dissertations" were relabelled. And, at the display level, a paper split into several outcome records can no longer appear as more than one card on the same condition page.

Unconfirmed figures held back. 104 records that could not be confirmed as genuine Tapping studies, or whose figures we could not verify, are kept out of the browsable pages entirely and flagged in the dataset. No figure on this site was invented or estimated — empty is always preferred over uncertain.

Sources traced. 97% of records now link directly to their original paper by DOI or publisher page. The remainder are older dissertations and defunct or regional journals with no stable online record; those are labelled as catalogued from a peer-reviewed index rather than given a broken link.