Mindfulness programs modestly reduce anxiety, depression and pain, and beat no active treatment, a 2014 review finds
The AHRQ-funded review of 47 trials (3,515 people) found moderate evidence that mindfulness programs ease anxiety and depression by about 0.3 standard deviations. No evidence they beat drugs, exercise or therapy.
Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: Small to moderate effects over mostly short trials in clinical populations, with publication bias untestable; the review found no advantage over other active treatments. The published abstract and the authors' manuscript disagree on the participant and citation counts.
The federal evidence review of meditation programs, both the benefit and the ceiling.
Significant findings
Goyal and colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, searched to November 2012 and included only randomised trials with active control groups, so that the comparison controlled for attention and expectation. From 18,753 citations they included 47 trials with 3,515 participants. Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size 0.38 at 8 weeks, 0.22 at 3 to 6 months), depression (0.30 at 8 weeks, 0.23 at 3 to 6 months) and pain (0.33), and low evidence of improved stress and mental-health quality of life. There was low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating, sleep or weight. Mantra programs such as Transcendental Meditation had low or insufficient evidence on every outcome examined. In the authors' words: "We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies)." Of nine trials that reported on harms, none reported any.
The other direction
Effects of 0.2 to 0.4 are small to moderate. Most trials were short-term, though they ranged from 4 weeks to 9 years. The populations were clinical and diverse, not the general public. Publication bias could not be tested because few studies were available for most outcomes. The authors still write that "clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress". Note that the published abstract gives 3,515 participants and 18,753 citations while the authors' manuscript in PubMed Central gives 3,320 and 17,801.
What this does not show
It does not show meditation replaces any treatment, and it does not tell anyone to start, stop or change one. The review found meditation programs roughly as effective as other active treatments on average, not more.
Worth asking
If I try a program, what would I expect to change in eight weeks, and how would I measure it?
Source
Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis — Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA (2014)
Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018
How this was scored
- Study design
- Meta-analysis of randomised trials
- Funding
- Independently funded
- Published in
- Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 3,515
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- Yes
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published October 7, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "gold standard". Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. It scores 92 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: Small to moderate effects over mostly short trials in clinical populations, with publication bias untestable; the review found no advantage over other active treatments. The published abstract and the authors' manuscript disagree on the participant and citation counts. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis — Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA (2014). Published in: Top-tier peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Meta-analysis of randomised trials. Funding: Independently funded. The researchers were independent of whoever benefits from the result. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.