Schäfer (2017), Allergologie Select. Narrative review of complementary approaches in atopic eczema. Notes that the single bioresonance trial reviewed showed no superiority over sham treatment.
Nowicki and colleagues for the Polish dermatology, allergy, paediatric and family medicine societies (2020), Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii. Clinical guideline. States that bioresonance is not recommended in atopic dermatitis.
Kelso (2018), Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. Review. Classes electrodermal (Vega-type) testing among unproven tests for adverse reactions to foods.
Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (2025). Professional position statement. Lists bioresonance as a variant of Vega testing, unable to separate allergic from healthy subjects, and advises against its use for allergy diagnosis.
Committee of Advertising Practice, updated 6 January 2026. Regulatory guidance. States that CAP has seen no evidence that bioresonance devices diagnose, prevent or treat disease, and cites four upheld ASA rulings: Life Principles (2015), Y and M Holistic Clinic (2018), Wayne Hardwick (2019), Anthony Grant (2021).
Kerschner for Medizin transparent, Cochrane Austria (September 2025). Evidence assessment of diagnostic scanning devices such as Bioscan. Concludes it found no valid evidence for diagnosis by these devices, citing the Dorsch and Kolt validity test and a 2022 German court case involving Bioscan distributors.
Dorsch and Kolt (2019), Allergo Journal. Experimental validity test of two diagnostic scanning devices, Bioscan and Vieva, run on volunteers, a cadaver, a meat loaf and a wet cloth. Reports that the devices produced similar readouts for living people and inanimate objects. Concerns diagnostic scanners rather than BICOM or MORA therapy systems.
Bergh and colleagues (2021), Animals. Systematic review covering cats, dogs and horses, 982 records screened. Bioresonance was one of fifteen therapies for which no study met the inclusion criteria. In plain terms: no veterinary bioresonance study of usable quality was found.
Erdoğan and colleagues (2025), İstanbul Rumeli University Journal of Health Sciences. Before and after, uncontrolled, seven dogs. Reports a 2.8 per cent rise in a device-derived spleen index only; other indices unchanged. The measures come from the same quantum pet analysis device.
Farsijani, Safi and Shirazi Beheshtiha (2023), Archives of Razi Institute. Diagnostic comparison in 30 cats. Reports 100 per cent sensitivity and 81.8 per cent specificity for the specific modulation frequency test. The reference standard included the index test itself, which is a design flaw.