The Tapping Evidence Base
How It Works (Biology)

Tapping away at a misleading meta-analysis

Spielmans, G., Rosen, G., Spence-Sing, T. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2020

Dismantling study📚 3 studies reviewed⚖️ vs. non-acupoint or non-bona-fide comparison groups📈 Cohen's -0.38 (small)Moderate rigor✓ Source-checked📍 United States
In plain English. These researchers went back and re-ran the numbers behind a meta-analysis that claimed tapping on acupuncture points specifically (not just doing therapy in general) makes a real difference. They found real problems with how the original studies were selected and compared, and when they redid the analysis on three studies, tapping came out no better than the comparison groups -- a difference too small and uncertain to call reliable. This is a direct methodological challenge to the pro-tapping meta-analyses discussed elsewhere in this catalog, and its own honest conclusion is that the specific benefit of acupoint tapping (beyond other therapy components) isn't established by this evidence.

What they found

Cohen's = -0.38
a small effect · 95% CI 0.10 to -0.87 · on acupoint tapping vs comparison groups
smallmoderatelarge
00.50.82.5

A critical re-analysis found methodological problems in Church et al.'s meta-analysis (including non-clinical samples in two studies and comparison groups that were not bona fide therapies), and reported a replication attempt across three studies finding acupoint tapping performed no better than comparison groups (d=-0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to -0.87, p=0.12), concluding the original meta-analysis found no specific mental health benefit for acupoint tapping.

How the study worked

Who took partCritical re-analysis of three comparative studies from Church et al.'s meta-analysis on acupoint tapping specificity
What they didThis dismantling study compared standard tapping against a modified version to test which components matter.
Compared withnon-acupoint or non-bona-fide comparison groups

The full record

DesignDismantling study
Participants3 studies pooled
PopulationCritical re-analysis of three comparative studies from Church et al.'s meta-analysis on acupoint tapping specificity
Comparison groupnon-acupoint or non-bona-fide comparison groups
Effect sizeCohen's d = -0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to -0.87) — on acupoint tapping vs comparison groups
JournalJournal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Year2020
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
MethodEFT / tapping
Publication typeStudy / trial
Verification✓ Confirmed against the primary source

Read the original study →

Cite this study

APA

Spielmans, G., Rosen, G., & Spence-Sing, T. (2020). Tapping away at a misleading meta-analysis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001181

This record is part of the Tapping Evidence Base — an openly-sourced, fully-referenced directory of the research on EFT/tapping. Explore more studies on How It Works (Biology)

Share this study

A ready-made graphic — right-click or long-press to save the image.

Show shareable card
THE TAPPING EVIDENCE BASE How It Works (Biology) Cohen's -0.38 small effect WHAT THEY FOUND A critical re-analysis found methodologicalproblems in Church et al.'s meta-analysis(including non-clinical samples… Dismantling study · 3 studies Spielmans · 2020 · evidence.thetappingsolution.com