Akhu-Zaheya, L.M., Khater, W.A., & Lafi, A.Y. (2016). The effectiveness of hologram bracelets in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among adult patients with cancer. Cancer Nursing. Advance online publication. 

To determine if the use of a hologram bracelet is effective in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult patients with cancer

A hologram bracelet was used as the intervention, and a counterfeit bracelet was used as the placebo. The control group did not use any bracelet. All groups received standard antiemetics. Data were collected through three cycles of chemotherapy for each participant using daily diaries and the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. The hologram bracelet is said to stabilize body energy by covering very low intensity magnetic fields. Theoretically, it attracts special charges that affect the brain in terms of regulating neurotransmitters that play a role in causing nausea and vomiting. Another theory is that the hologram reflects infrared rays into the body, which stimulate secretion of these same neurotransmitters. Data were collected at baseline, on the first day of chemotherapy, and then daily on days 2–5 for three cycles. Patients were randomized to one of three groups: hologram, placebo, and usual care control.

• N = 175   
• AGE = 18–75 years
• MEAN AGE = 42.3 years
• MALES: 31.4%, FEMALES: 68.6%
• CURRENT TREATMENT: Chemotherapy
• KEY DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: Any type and stage of cancer
• OTHER KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: Inpatient and outpatient adults who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy and experienced nausea and vomiting, various levels of emetogenicity of treatment with 58.5% on HEC regimens

• SITE: Single site   
• SETTING TYPE: Multiple settings    
• LOCATION: Jordan

PHASE OF CARE: Active antitumor treatment

• Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

• Participants’ medical records
• FLIE questionnaire
• Daily diary

Less anticipatory chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) severity existed in the hologram group in cycles 2 and 3 (p < 0.5). The hologram group experienced less anticipatory chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) only during the cycle 3 (p < 0.03). In the acute phase, no difference in CIV existed between the three groups but less CIN in the intervention group at all three cycles (all p's < 0.05). In the delayed CIV phase, the severity and frequency of CINV was significantly lower in the hologram group. Men experienced a greater positive effect than women. Overall, the hologram group had positive effects on both nausea and vomiting but greater effects on nausea. A decrease in antiemetic use was also noted. In evaluating the FLIE, higher mean scores were found in the hologram group during all three cycles of chemotherapy (p < 0.05).

The use of the hologram bracelet worn at all times during three cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy showed a significant decrease in CINV, higher levels of activities of daily living, and decreased use of antiemetics. Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens are not clearly described.

• Unintended interventions or applicable interventions not described that would influence results
• Changes in chemotherapy and antiemetic regimens during the three cycles
• Influence of the placebo effect and self-reporting biases
• Varied emetogenic levels of chemotherapy with no relevant subgroup analysis
• Antiemetic medications used are not clearly reported or standardized
• The use of rescue medication is not addressed.

The use of a hologram bracelet may be effective as a complement to standard antiemetic use in reducing CINV but especially in increasing quality of life during treatment. This may have an effect particularly on nausea symptoms.