补充愈合干预和真皮伤口再上皮化:综述。

D P Wirth
{"title":"补充愈合干预和真皮伤口再上皮化:综述。","authors":"D P Wirth","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A comparative analysis was conducted on a series of five experiments which examined the effect of complementary healing to the reepithelialization rate of full thickness human dermal wounds. The treatment intervention focused primarily on Noncontact Therapeutic Touch, which was administered within randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental protocols. An important methodological component of the studies was that in general the complementary healing practitioners were separated or isolated from the participants and subjects. This design element, coupled with the fact that in four of the five experiments subjects were blinded to the nature of the active treatment modality, resulted in the preclusion of suggestion, expectation, and the placebo effect; the factors which have confounded most prior complementary healing research. The results of the experiments indicated significance for the treatment group in the initial two studies in the series, and nonsignificant and reverse significant results for the control group in the remaining three experiments. Several factors were postulated as important considerations in the differential results obtained including: (1) cancellation and inhibitory elements; (2) carryover and learning effects; and (3) potential experimenter and placebo effect factors. Although the five studies represent a seminal research effort within the field of complementary healing, the overall results of the series are inconclusive in establishing the efficacy of the treatment interventions examined.</p>","PeriodicalId":77182,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychosomatics : official publication of the International Psychosomatics Institute","volume":"42 1-4","pages":"48-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complementary healing intervention and dermal wound reepithelialization: an overview.\",\"authors\":\"D P Wirth\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A comparative analysis was conducted on a series of five experiments which examined the effect of complementary healing to the reepithelialization rate of full thickness human dermal wounds. The treatment intervention focused primarily on Noncontact Therapeutic Touch, which was administered within randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental protocols. An important methodological component of the studies was that in general the complementary healing practitioners were separated or isolated from the participants and subjects. This design element, coupled with the fact that in four of the five experiments subjects were blinded to the nature of the active treatment modality, resulted in the preclusion of suggestion, expectation, and the placebo effect; the factors which have confounded most prior complementary healing research. The results of the experiments indicated significance for the treatment group in the initial two studies in the series, and nonsignificant and reverse significant results for the control group in the remaining three experiments. Several factors were postulated as important considerations in the differential results obtained including: (1) cancellation and inhibitory elements; (2) carryover and learning effects; and (3) potential experimenter and placebo effect factors. Although the five studies represent a seminal research effort within the field of complementary healing, the overall results of the series are inconclusive in establishing the efficacy of the treatment interventions examined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of psychosomatics : official publication of the International Psychosomatics Institute\",\"volume\":\"42 1-4\",\"pages\":\"48-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of psychosomatics : official publication of the International Psychosomatics Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychosomatics : official publication of the International Psychosomatics Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过5个实验对比分析了补充愈合对全层人皮肤创面再生率的影响。治疗干预主要集中在非接触治疗性接触,这是在随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的实验方案中进行的。这些研究的一个重要方法学组成部分是,一般来说,辅助治疗从业者与参与者和受试者分开或隔离。这一设计元素,再加上五个实验中有四个实验对象对积极治疗方式的性质一无所知,导致了暗示、期望和安慰剂效应的排除;这些因素混淆了大多数先前的补充治疗研究。在该系列的前两项研究中,实验组的实验结果为显著性,其余三项实验中,对照组的实验结果为不显著性和负显著性。在得到的差异结果中,假设有几个因素是重要的考虑因素,包括:(1)抵消和抑制因素;(2)传递和学习效应;(3)潜在实验者和安慰剂效应因素。尽管这五项研究代表了补充治疗领域的开创性研究成果,但该系列的总体结果在确定所检查的治疗干预措施的有效性方面尚无定论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complementary healing intervention and dermal wound reepithelialization: an overview.

A comparative analysis was conducted on a series of five experiments which examined the effect of complementary healing to the reepithelialization rate of full thickness human dermal wounds. The treatment intervention focused primarily on Noncontact Therapeutic Touch, which was administered within randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental protocols. An important methodological component of the studies was that in general the complementary healing practitioners were separated or isolated from the participants and subjects. This design element, coupled with the fact that in four of the five experiments subjects were blinded to the nature of the active treatment modality, resulted in the preclusion of suggestion, expectation, and the placebo effect; the factors which have confounded most prior complementary healing research. The results of the experiments indicated significance for the treatment group in the initial two studies in the series, and nonsignificant and reverse significant results for the control group in the remaining three experiments. Several factors were postulated as important considerations in the differential results obtained including: (1) cancellation and inhibitory elements; (2) carryover and learning effects; and (3) potential experimenter and placebo effect factors. Although the five studies represent a seminal research effort within the field of complementary healing, the overall results of the series are inconclusive in establishing the efficacy of the treatment interventions examined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信