Wirth D P
Healing Sciences Research International, Orinda, California, USA.
Int J Psychosom. 1995;42(1-4):48-53.
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.
对一系列五项实验进行了比较分析，这些实验考察了辅助治疗对人类全层皮肤伤口再上皮化率的影响。治疗干预主要集中在非接触性治疗触摸上，在随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的实验方案中进行。这些研究的一个重要方法组成部分是，一般来说，辅助治疗从业者与参与者和受试者是分开或隔离的。这一设计元素，再加上在五项实验中的四项中受试者对积极治疗方式的性质不知情，排除了暗示、期望和安慰剂效应；而这些因素在大多数先前的辅助治疗研究中造成了混淆。实验结果表明，该系列最初两项研究中的治疗组有显著效果，而在其余三项实验中，对照组的结果不显著和出现反向显著结果。提出了几个因素作为获得不同结果的重要考虑因素，包括：（1）抵消和抑制因素；（2）延续和学习效应；（3）潜在的实验者和安慰剂效应因素。尽管这五项研究是辅助治疗领域开创性的研究工作，但该系列的总体结果在确定所考察的治疗干预措施的疗效方面尚无定论。
