↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002766.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dónal P O'Mathúna

Abstract

Therapeutic Touch (TT) is an alternative therapy that has gained popularity over the past two decades for helping wounds to heal. Practitioners enter a meditative state and pass their hands above the patient's body to find and correct any imbalances in the patient's 'life energy' or chi. Scientific instruments have been unable to detect this energy. The effect of TT on wound healing has been expounded in anecdotal publications. To identify and review all relevant data to determine the effects of TT on healing acute wounds. In January 2014, for this fifth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, which compared the effect of TT with a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment control were considered. Studies which used TT as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other therapies, were eligible. One author (DO'M) determined the eligibility for inclusion of all trials in the review. Both authors conducted data extraction and evaluation of trial validity independently. Each trial was assessed using predetermined criteria. No new trials were identified for this update. Four trials in people with experimental wounds were included. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two trials (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant increase in healing associated with TT, while one trial found significantly worse healing after TT and the other found no significant difference. All trials are at high risk of bias. There is no robust evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 31 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Psychology 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 30 47%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,525,648
of 21,568,231 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,334
of 12,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,251
of 289,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,568,231 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.