ReviewRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Definitions of the elements of the NANDA-I nursing diagnosis "Imbalanced Energy Field": an integrative review.
Review in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity Study of the "Imbalanced Energy Field" Nursing Diagnosis.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto synthesize literature on imbalanced energy field to conceptually and operationally define the defining characteristics and related factors of diagnosis "Imbalanced Energy Field" (00273) (NANDA-I).
methodsa study developed in two phases: integrative literature review (Whittemore & Knafl) and improvement of definitions of diagnostic elements. The CINAHL, Scopus, LILACS, BDENF, FIOCRUZ, Web of Science, INTEGRALIDADE and PubMed databases were used from 2016 to 2022.
resultsa total of 524 articles were identified, and 14 articles were selected for analysis. Five addressed therapeutic touch outcomes; three studies addressed Reiki outcomes; and six studies addressed mixed integrative practices with levels of evidence, according to the Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt criteria: level II (six studies); VI (three studies); III (three studies); IV (1 study); and V (one study).
conclusionsthe articles analyzed favored the improvement of the conceptual and operational definitions of defining characteristics and related factors of the diagnosis under study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.