A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Examining the Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Touch in Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the hypothesis that nontouch therapy such as therapeutic touch (TT) reduces stress to a clinically important degree and is safe to use in preterm infants. DESIGN: A pilot randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SUBJECTS: Two groups of 10 infants were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment or nontreatment groups. Gestational age was less than 29 weeks. Demographic descriptions of the 2 groups were statistically similar. METHODS: The observer and staff were blinded to assignment; the TT practitioner was blinded to observed measurements. Each infant received either TT or no therapeutic touch (NTT) for 5 minutes on 3 consecutive days at the same time of day, behind a curtain. Heart period variability (HPV) was measured 5 minutes before, during, and after the treatment phase. RESULTS: Examination of the parameters of oxygen saturation and episodes of apnea demonstrated no increase in adverse events in TT group compared with NTT group. Repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance on HPV revealed differences in the interaction of group assignment with low-frequency, high-frequency, and low-to-high- frequency ratio interaction (F2,143 = 8.076, P = .000) and for group, day, and low-frequency, high-frequency, and low-to-high-frequency ratio (F2,288 = 3.146, P = .015), and in the posttreatment time period (F1,16 = 6.259, P = .024), reflective of greater parasympathetic activity in TT group. CONCLUSION: In this pilot trial, HPV showed an increase for the TT group compared with the NTT group. The study reveals no adverse effects of TT in preterm infants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".