Erratum to: Int.J. Behav. Med.

DOI 10.1007/s12529-009-9062-4

The original version of this article, which published in volume 17, issue 1 (Spring 2010), contained some errors in the text and online supplementary tables. The errors in the text are:

  1. 1)

    In the “Results” section, under the subheading “Hospitalized and Postoperative Patients,” the second sentence should read: “Five studies (four high quality and one low quality, using...” as opposed to “Six studies, (five high qualities and one low quality...”

  2. 2)

    In the “Results” section, under the subheading “Best Evidence Synthesis”, the first line of the second paragraph should read: “All 66 studies (separated by population/ailment studied) are presented in Tables 4a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h as electronic supplementary material.” (as opposed to “All 67 studies...”).

  3. 3)

    In the “Results” section, within the first paragraph of the second column on page 13, the sentence should read “It should be noted that of 66 studies....”, as opposed to “It should be noted that of 67 studies”.

The errors in the online supplementary tables are:

  1. 1)

    Table 4b (Cancer Studies) is missing a study, which should be placed after Smith et al., and before Olsen et al. Specific verbiage and format follows:

Table 1

(Please note that the table currently linked to Table 4d for dementia patients is actually the CORRECT table for 4b; that is, this table is for cancer patients and includes the Aghabati et al. study placed correctly in the table).

  1. 2)

    Table 4d (Dementia studies) is incorrectly linked to another table (see above). The table for 4d should be as indicated on the following page:

  1. 3)

    Table 4g (Student Populations) includes a study by Woods & Dimond, 2002 on Alzheimer’s patients and should not appear in this table.

    Table 2

Table 4d. Biofield studies conducted with dementia patients, in order of total quality ratings (highest to lowest). Problematic studies marked with an asterisk (*). (TT = Therapeutic Touch)