The Empirical Status of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of 44 Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Mindfulness-based interventions show superiority to passive controls across a wide range of populations, problems, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes, with effect sizes ranging from 0.10 to 0.89. Effects are typically smaller and less often statistically significant compared with active controls, though mindfulness-based interventions are similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Heterogeneity is typically moderate, few consistent moderators are found, and results are generally robust to publication bias. Reporting of adverse effects is inconsistent, and statistical power may be lacking in meta-analyses, particularly for comparisons with active controls.

Study at a glance

Abstract

In response to questions regarding the scientific basis for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), we evaluated their empirical status by systematically reviewing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched six databases for effect sizes based on four or more trials that did not combine passive and active controls. Heterogeneity, moderators, tests of publication bias, risk of bias, and adverse effects were also extracted. Representative effect sizes based on the largest number of studies were identified across a wide range of populations, problems, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICOS). A total of 160 effect sizes were reported in 44 meta-analyses ( k = 336 RCTs, N = 30,483 participants). MBIs showed superiority to passive controls across most PICOS ( ds = 0.10–0.89). Effects were typically smaller and less often statistically significant compared with active controls. MBIs were similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Heterogeneity was typically moderate. Few consistent moderators were found. Results were generally robust to publication bias, although other important sources of bias were identified. Reporting of adverse effects was inconsistent. Statistical power may be lacking in meta-analyses, particularly for comparisons with active controls. Because MBIs show promise across some PICOS, future RCTs and meta-analyses should build on identified strengths and limitations of this literature.