D P O'Mathúna1. 1. Mount Carmel College of Nursing, Columbus, OH, USA. domathuna@mchs.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present principles for accurately representing research for evidence-based practice and health care policies, and to evaluate how original research results indicated adherence to those principles in literature reviews of therapeutic touch. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: Critical thinking and scientific integrity. SOURCES: Reviews of therapeutic touch literature published in nursing journals between 1994 and 1998 and the research studies cited in those reviews. METHODS: Statements made in reviews about the efficacy of therapeutic touch were compared with the results and conclusions of the research cited. General conclusions reported in reviews were evaluated against a broad range of therapeutic touch (TT) research studies, including many not cited in reviews. How accurately reviewers represented the research studies was evaluated by comparing reviewers' conclusions with those of the researchers. Findings were organized into principles to guide evidence-based reviews. FINDINGS: Literature reviews about therapeutic touch often cited only research with favorable findings. When citing studies with contradictory findings, only the favorable findings were usually mentioned. In many reviews, research cited as indicating the efficacy of therapeutic touch indicated it was ineffective. Every review examined had at least one significant mistake concerning how research studies were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate presentation of original research results is needed to make evidence-based decisions and to ensure that limited healthcare resources are used effectively and safely. Evidence-based principles should be followed in reviewing therapies and practices, including alternative therapies.
PURPOSE: To present principles for accurately representing research for evidence-based practice and health care policies, and to evaluate how original research results indicated adherence to those principles in literature reviews of therapeutic touch. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: Critical thinking and scientific integrity. SOURCES: Reviews of therapeutic touch literature published in nursing journals between 1994 and 1998 and the research studies cited in those reviews. METHODS: Statements made in reviews about the efficacy of therapeutic touch were compared with the results and conclusions of the research cited. General conclusions reported in reviews were evaluated against a broad range of therapeutic touch (TT) research studies, including many not cited in reviews. How accurately reviewers represented the research studies was evaluated by comparing reviewers' conclusions with those of the researchers. Findings were organized into principles to guide evidence-based reviews. FINDINGS: Literature reviews about therapeutic touch often cited only research with favorable findings. When citing studies with contradictory findings, only the favorable findings were usually mentioned. In many reviews, research cited as indicating the efficacy of therapeutic touch indicated it was ineffective. Every review examined had at least one significant mistake concerning how research studies were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate presentation of original research results is needed to make evidence-based decisions and to ensure that limited healthcare resources are used effectively and safely. Evidence-based principles should be followed in reviewing therapies and practices, including alternative therapies.