Bernie Garrett1, Marliss Riou1. 1. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications. DESIGN: A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009-March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized-controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, one chart review study and one mixed methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered and scored as low-quality studies. No high-quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.
AIM: To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications. DESIGN: A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009-March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized-controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, one chart review study and one mixed methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered and scored as low-quality studies. No high-quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.