Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment

Author:

Mathie Robert T1,Van Wassenhoven Michel2,Jacobs Jennifer3,Oberbaum Menachem4,Roniger Helmut5,Frye Joyce6,Manchanda Raj K7,Terzan Laurence8,Chaufferin Gilles8,Dantas Flávio9,Fisher Peter5

Affiliation:

1. British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK

2. Belgian Homeopathic Medicines Registration Commission, FAMHP, Rue Taille Madame 23, B-1450 Chastre, Belgium

3. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

4. Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

5. Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, 60 Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3HR, UK

6. Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA

7. Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi 110058, India

8. Boiron, 20 Rue de la Liberation, 69110 Sainte Foy-lès-Lyon, France

9. Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil

Abstract

Background: Though potentially an important limitation in the literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy, the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) has not previously been systematically investigated. Objective: As an integral part of a programme of systematic reviews, to assess MVHT of eligible RCTs of individualised homeopathic treatment. Methods: From 46 previously identified papers in the category, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were thus the subject of the study. For each of six domains of assessment per trial, MVHT was judged independently by three randomly allocated assessors from our group, who reached a final verdict by consensus discussion as necessary. Results: Nineteen trials were judged overall as ‘acceptable’ MVHT, nine as ‘uncertain’ MVHT, and four as ‘inadequate’ MVHT. Conclusions: These results do not support concern that deficient MVHT has frequently undermined the published findings of RCTs of individualised homeopathy. However, the 13 trials with ‘uncertain’ or ‘inadequate’ MVHT will be a focus of attention in supplementary meta-analysis. New RCTs of individualised homeopathy must aim to maximise MVHT and to enable its assessment through clear reporting.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Complementary and alternative medicine

Reference45 articles.

1. Complementary and alternative whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT;Verhoef;Complement Ther Med,2005

2. Qualitätsaspekte klinischer Studien zur Homöopathie;Wein,2002

3. Checklist for the qualitative evaluation of clinical studies with particular focus on external validity and model validity;Bornhöft;BMC Med Res Methodol,2006

4. Evaluating complex healthcare systems: a critique of four approaches;Boon;Evid Based Complement Altern Med,2007

5. Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study;Aickin;BMC Med Res Methodol,2012

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3