A research team consisting of Dr Lisa de Rijk, visiting research fellow at Kings College London,  Dr Phil Parker, researcher at London Metropolitan University and Jacqui Aston MSc has successfully completed and published a systematic review of the evidence base for the Lightning Process. It’s published in the peer-reviewed journal Explore and can be found here.

This type of review is an important step in developing the evidence base for the Lightning Process as it collates the existing research into one study. It also evaluates the quality of the studies (how well they were designed and reported on and if there was any evidence of bias) and provides a review of the effects of the LP as reported by these studies.

Highlights
• First systematic review into the Lightning Process.

•Found a variance in quality of studies from good to fair and in reported patient outcomes.

•All studies evidenced a level of benefit from the intervention, commonly for majority of participants.

Abstract
Background
The Lightning Process (LP), a mind-body training programme, has been applied to a range of health problems and disorders. Studies and surveys report a range of outcomes creating a lack of clarity about the efficacy of the intervention.

Objective
This systematic review evaluates the methodological quality of existing studies on the LP and collates and reviews its reported efficacy.

Data sources
Five databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC (to September 2018), and Google and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies.

Study Selection
Studies of the LP in clinical populations published in peer-reviewed journals or in grey literature were selected. Reviews, editorial articles and studies/surveys with un-reported methodology were excluded.

Data extraction
Searches returned 568 records, 21 were retrieved in full text of which 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (ten quantitative studies/surveys and four qualitative studies).

Data synthesis and Conclusions
The review identified variance in the quality of studies across time; earlier studies demonstrated a lack of control groups, a lack of clarity of aspects of the methodology and potential sampling bias. Although it found a variance in reported patient outcomes, the review also identified an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression. It concludes that there is a need for more randomised controlled trials to evaluate if these positive outcomes can be replicated and generalised to larger populations.

Keywords
Lightning ProcessSystematic review Patient outcomes