Katharina Gaertner, Robert G Hahn, Radmila Razlog, Frauke Musial, Stephan Baumgartner, Martin Loef, Harald Walach
{"title":"顺势疗法干预研究的关键评估工具- CATHIS。","authors":"Katharina Gaertner, Robert G Hahn, Radmila Razlog, Frauke Musial, Stephan Baumgartner, Martin Loef, Harald Walach","doi":"10.1159/000542920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quality of homeopathic research studies is controversially discussed. In order to improve, the overall assessment of homeopathic studies and subsequently facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making, we aimed to combine methodological tools for scientific rigor with tools for external and model validity into one global tool.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Against the background of previous literature and the results of a preparatory survey, a first draft of a potential overarching tool was presented to an expert panel. Then, Delphi feedback rounds were conducted to elicit responses on the feasibility. The resulting preliminary tool was pilot-tested by five research experts on five randomly selected studies. After further optimization, another five studies were assessed by the same experts and another three experts tested the second version. The ratings were tested for interrater-reliability using Gwet's AC2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The appraisal tool comprises four domains. These are (1) the assessment of risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Tool, (2) the studies' credibility including the CONSORT statement and its extension on homeopathy, (3) the study interventions' coherence with homeopathic textbooks and previous research, and (4) the studies' clinical relevance. Each domain is assessed using a point system, which is then added up to an overall score. The instrument was evaluated as useful and \"easy to apply\" by the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for five raters, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.49-0.79) for additional three raters in round 2, signifying good to moderate interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have developed an applicable and reliable assessment tool for homeopathic intervention studies. Using it in systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase their scientific value.</p>","PeriodicalId":10541,"journal":{"name":"Complementary Medicine Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Appraisal Tool for Homeopathic Intervention Studies: CATHIS.\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Gaertner, Robert G Hahn, Radmila Razlog, Frauke Musial, Stephan Baumgartner, Martin Loef, Harald Walach\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000542920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quality of homeopathic research studies is controversially discussed. In order to improve, the overall assessment of homeopathic studies and subsequently facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making, we aimed to combine methodological tools for scientific rigor with tools for external and model validity into one global tool.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Against the background of previous literature and the results of a preparatory survey, a first draft of a potential overarching tool was presented to an expert panel. Then, Delphi feedback rounds were conducted to elicit responses on the feasibility. The resulting preliminary tool was pilot-tested by five research experts on five randomly selected studies. After further optimization, another five studies were assessed by the same experts and another three experts tested the second version. The ratings were tested for interrater-reliability using Gwet's AC2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The appraisal tool comprises four domains. These are (1) the assessment of risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Tool, (2) the studies' credibility including the CONSORT statement and its extension on homeopathy, (3) the study interventions' coherence with homeopathic textbooks and previous research, and (4) the studies' clinical relevance. Each domain is assessed using a point system, which is then added up to an overall score. The instrument was evaluated as useful and \\\"easy to apply\\\" by the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for five raters, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.49-0.79) for additional three raters in round 2, signifying good to moderate interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have developed an applicable and reliable assessment tool for homeopathic intervention studies. Using it in systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase their scientific value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Complementary Medicine Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Complementary Medicine Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542920\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complementary Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542920","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:顺势疗法研究的质量存在争议。为了改善顺势疗法研究的整体评估,并随后促进循证临床决策,我们的目标是将科学严谨性的方法学工具与外部和模型有效性的工具结合为一个全球性工具。方法:在先前文献和预备调查结果的背景下,向专家小组提交了一个潜在的总体工具的初稿。然后,进行德尔菲轮次反馈,以征求对可行性的回应。由此产生的初步工具由五位研究专家在五项随机选择的研究中进行了试点测试。在进一步优化后,另外五个研究由相同的专家评估,另外三个专家测试了第二个版本。使用Gwet的AC2对评级进行了inter - inter -reliability测试。结果:评价工具包括四个领域。这些评估包括使用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险(1),研究的可信度(2),包括CONSORT声明及其对顺势疗法的延伸,研究干预措施与顺势疗法教科书和先前研究的一致性(3),以及研究的临床相关性(4)。每个领域都使用计分系统进行评估,然后将其加起来形成总分。该工具被评分者评价为有用且“易于应用”。在第2轮中,5个评分者的间信度为0.81 (95% CI 0.75至0.88),另外3个评分者的间信度为0.64 (95% CI 0.49至0.79),表明间信度良好至中等。结论:我们为顺势疗法干预研究开发了一种适用且可靠的评估工具。在系统评价和荟萃分析中使用它将增加它们的科学价值。
Critical Appraisal Tool for Homeopathic Intervention Studies: CATHIS.
Background: The quality of homeopathic research studies is controversially discussed. In order to improve, the overall assessment of homeopathic studies and subsequently facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making, we aimed to combine methodological tools for scientific rigor with tools for external and model validity into one global tool.
Method: Against the background of previous literature and the results of a preparatory survey, a first draft of a potential overarching tool was presented to an expert panel. Then, Delphi feedback rounds were conducted to elicit responses on the feasibility. The resulting preliminary tool was pilot-tested by five research experts on five randomly selected studies. After further optimization, another five studies were assessed by the same experts and another three experts tested the second version. The ratings were tested for interrater-reliability using Gwet's AC2.
Results: The appraisal tool comprises four domains. These are (1) the assessment of risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Tool, (2) the studies' credibility including the CONSORT statement and its extension on homeopathy, (3) the study interventions' coherence with homeopathic textbooks and previous research, and (4) the studies' clinical relevance. Each domain is assessed using a point system, which is then added up to an overall score. The instrument was evaluated as useful and "easy to apply" by the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for five raters, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.49-0.79) for additional three raters in round 2, signifying good to moderate interrater reliability.
Conclusion: We have developed an applicable and reliable assessment tool for homeopathic intervention studies. Using it in systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase their scientific value.
期刊介绍:
Aims and Scope
''Complementary Medicine Research'' is an international journal that aims to bridge the gap between conventional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) on a sound scientific basis, promoting their mutual integration. Accordingly, experts of both conventional medicine and CAM medicine cooperate on the journal‘s editorial board, which accepts papers only after a rigorous peer-review process in order to maintain a high standard of scientific quality.
Spectrum of ''Complementary Medicine Research'':
- Review and Original Articles, Case Reports and Essays regarding complementary practice and methods
- Journal Club: Analysis and discussion of internationally published articles in complementary medicine
- Editorials of leading experts in complementary medicine
- Questions of complementary patient-centered care
- Education in complementary medicine
- Reports on important meetings and conferences
- Society Bulletins of Schweizerische Medizinische Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie (SMGP) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Naturheilkunde
Bibliographic Details
Complementary Medicine Research
Journal Abbreviation: Complement Med Res
ISSN: 2504-2092 (Print)
e-ISSN: 2504-2106 (Online)
DOI: 10.1159/issn.2504-2092
www.karger.com/CMR