miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment
Homeopathy Research Institute, London, UK.
FAMHP (Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products), Belgium.
Independent Researcher, United States.
Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen, Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Homeopathy, ISSN 1475-4916, E-ISSN 1476-4245, Vol. 106, no 4, p. 194-202Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background The comprehensive systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy requires examination of a study's model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) as well as its risk of bias (extent of reliable evidence). Objective To appraise MVHT in those RCTs of non-individualised homeopathy that an associated investigation had judged as ‘not at high risk of bias’. Design Systematic review. Methods An assessment of MVHT was ascribed to each of 26 eligible RCTs. Another 49 RCTs were ineligible due to their high risk of bias. Main outcome measures MVHT and the prior risk of bias rating per trial were merged to obtain a single overall quality designation (‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’), based on the GRADE principle of downgrading. Results The trials were rated as ‘acceptable MVHT’ (N = 9), ‘uncertain MVHT’ (N = 10) and ‘inadequate MVHT’ (N = 7); and, previously, as ‘reliable evidence’ (N = 3) and ‘non-reliable evidence’ (N = 23). The 26 trials were designated overall as: ‘high quality’ (N = 1); ‘moderate quality’ (N = 18); ‘low quality’ (N = 7). Conclusion Of the 26 RCTs of non-individualised homeopathy that were judged ‘not at high risk of bias’, nine have been rated ‘acceptable MVHT’. One of those nine studies was designated ‘high quality’ overall (‘acceptable MVHT’ and ‘reliable evidence’), and is thus currently the only reported RCT that represents best therapeutic practice as well as unbiased evidence in non-individualised homeopathy. As well as minimising risk of bias, new RCTs in this area must aim to maximise MVHT and clarity of reporting. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 106, no 4, p. 194-202
Keywords [en]
Model validity, Non-individualised homeopathy, Randomised placebo-controlled trials, Risk of bias, Systematic review
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-32235DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2017.07.003ISI: 000416947000002PubMedID: 29157469Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85029208113OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-32235DiVA, id: diva2:1162500
Available from: 2017-12-04 Created: 2017-12-04 Last updated: 2018-04-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Jong, Miek C.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jong, Miek C.
By organisation
Department of Nursing Sciences
In the same journal
Homeopathy
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 11 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf