[Omeo33] Art 0866 - Homeopathy, 2008, 97 (4), 169-177

[R.Pulcri]

questo lo prendo io
Rob
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gino Santini" <g.santini a ismo.it>
To: <omeopatia33 a siomi.it>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: [Omeo33] Art 0866 - Homeopathy, 2008, 97 (4), 169-177


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SIOMI / Redazione di Omeopatia33
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication 
> data
> A.L.B. Rutten and C.F. Stolper
>
> Background - There is a discrepancy between the outcome of a
> meta-analysis published in 1997 of 89 trials of homeopathy by Linde
> et al and an analysis of 110 trials by Shang et al published in 2005,
> these reached opposite conclusions. Important data were not mentioned
> in Shang et al's paper, but only provided subsequently.
> Questions - What was the outcome of Shang et al's predefined
> hypotheses? Were the homeopathic and conventional trials comparable?
> Was subgroup selection justified? The possible role of ineffective
> treatments. Was the conclusion about effect justified? Were essential
> data missing in the original article?
> Methods - Analysis of post-publication data. Re-extraction and
> analysis of 21 higher quality trials selected by Shang et al with
> sensitivity analysis for the influence of single indications.
> Analysis of comparability. Sensitivity analysis of influence of
> subjective choices, like quality of single indications and of cut-off
> values for 'larger samples'.
> Results - The quality of trials of homeopathy was better than of
> conventional trials. Regarding smaller trials, homeopathy accounted
> for 14 out of 83 and conventional medicine 2 out of 78 good quality
> trials with n < 100. There was selective inclusion of unpublished
> trials only for homeopathy. Quality was assessed differently from
> previous analyses. Selecting subgroups on sample size and quality
> caused incomplete matching of homeopathy and conventional trials.
> Cut-off values for larger trials differed between homeopathy and
> conventional medicine without plausible reason. Sensitivity analyses
> for the influence of heterogeneity and the cut-off value for 'larger
> higher quality studies' were missing. Homeopathy is not effective for
> muscle soreness after long distance running, OR = 1.30 (95% CI
> 0.96-1.76). The subset of homeopathy trials on which the conclusion
> was based was heterogeneous, comprising 8 trials on 8 different
> indications, and was not matched on indication with those of
> conventional medicine. Essential data were missing in the original
> paper.
> Conclusion - Re-analysis of Shang's post-publication data did not
> support the conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo effect. The
> conclusion that homeopathy is and that conventional is not a placebo
> effect was not based on comparative analysis and not justified
> because of heterogeneity and lack of sensitivity analysis. If we
> confine ourselves to the predefined hypotheses and the part of the
> analysis that is indeed comparative, the conclusion should be that
> quality of homeopathic trials is better than of conventional trials,
> for all trials (p = 0.03) as well as for smaller trials (p = 0.003).
>
> Disponibile il full-text su richiesta
> -- 
>
> === mailto:g.santini a ismo.it
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Per evitare inutili sovrapposizioni, ricordatevi di segnalare in lista
il lavoro che intendete recensire.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1743 - Release Date: 24/10/2008 
8.33