顺势疗法的系统综述和荟萃分析:总结顺势疗法干预研究证据的建议(Sum HomIS建议)。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Katharina Gaertner , Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni , Stephan Baumgartner , Harald Walach , Michael Frass , Petra Weiermayer
{"title":"顺势疗法的系统综述和荟萃分析:总结顺势疗法干预研究证据的建议(Sum HomIS建议)。","authors":"Katharina Gaertner ,&nbsp;Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni ,&nbsp;Stephan Baumgartner ,&nbsp;Harald Walach ,&nbsp;Michael Frass ,&nbsp;Petra Weiermayer","doi":"10.1016/j.ctim.2023.102999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mainly due to the use of different inclusion criteria and quality assessments, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) with homeopathic intervention studies (HOMIS) have shown inconsistent results. We aimed to build recommendations for “Summarizing evidence from Homeopathic Intervention Studies” (Sum-HomIS recommendations) in order to approach standardization.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Against the background of a framework-project to update the evidence from homeopathic intervention studies, we launched an expert panel on how to assess the quality of HOMIS and how to summarize evidence from HOMIS. The results of a literature review and the expert communications in advance of the panel as well as the consensus from the discussions are presented here. We added specific considerations for homeopathic veterinary research.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On top of the general guidelines when planning a review we report five basic Sum-HomIS recommendations. These are: 1) A broad literature search including special archives and consideration of so-called grey-literature; 2) The inclusion of controlled observational studies alongside randomized controlled trials; 3) The choice of a clear clinical research question in the terms that, if possible, the review project includes studies with predominantly homogeneous populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes (PICOs); 4) The use of a global quality assessment including the assessment of external, model and internal validity; 5) A summary of evidence using the GRADE-approach if the body of evidence is sufficiently large and homogenous or a descriptive summary if it is not so.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869/pdfft?md5=93ce0e8d30b3cb9851c08e3e8c1f7a9d&pid=1-s2.0-S0965229923000869-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Homeopathy: Recommendations for summarising evidence from homeopathic intervention studies (Sum-HomIS recommendations)\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Gaertner ,&nbsp;Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni ,&nbsp;Stephan Baumgartner ,&nbsp;Harald Walach ,&nbsp;Michael Frass ,&nbsp;Petra Weiermayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctim.2023.102999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mainly due to the use of different inclusion criteria and quality assessments, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) with homeopathic intervention studies (HOMIS) have shown inconsistent results. We aimed to build recommendations for “Summarizing evidence from Homeopathic Intervention Studies” (Sum-HomIS recommendations) in order to approach standardization.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Against the background of a framework-project to update the evidence from homeopathic intervention studies, we launched an expert panel on how to assess the quality of HOMIS and how to summarize evidence from HOMIS. The results of a literature review and the expert communications in advance of the panel as well as the consensus from the discussions are presented here. We added specific considerations for homeopathic veterinary research.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On top of the general guidelines when planning a review we report five basic Sum-HomIS recommendations. These are: 1) A broad literature search including special archives and consideration of so-called grey-literature; 2) The inclusion of controlled observational studies alongside randomized controlled trials; 3) The choice of a clear clinical research question in the terms that, if possible, the review project includes studies with predominantly homogeneous populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes (PICOs); 4) The use of a global quality assessment including the assessment of external, model and internal validity; 5) A summary of evidence using the GRADE-approach if the body of evidence is sufficiently large and homogenous or a descriptive summary if it is not so.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869/pdfft?md5=93ce0e8d30b3cb9851c08e3e8c1f7a9d&pid=1-s2.0-S0965229923000869-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:主要由于使用了不同的纳入标准和质量评估,系统综述(SR)和荟萃分析(MA)与顺势疗法干预研究(HOMIS)显示出不一致的结果。我们旨在为“顺势疗法干预研究证据总结”(Sum HomIS建议)建立建议,以实现标准化。方法:在一个更新顺势疗法干预研究证据的框架项目的背景下,我们启动了一个专家小组,讨论如何评估HOMIS的质量以及如何总结HOMIS的证据。本文介绍了专家组之前的文献综述和专家交流的结果,以及讨论中达成的共识。我们增加了顺势疗法兽医研究的具体考虑因素。结果:在计划审查时,除了一般指南外,我们还报告了五项基本的Sum HomIS建议。它们是:1)广泛的文献检索,包括专门的档案和对所谓灰色文献的考虑;2) 在随机对照试验的同时纳入对照观察性研究;3) 选择一个明确的临床研究问题,如果可能的话,审查项目包括主要具有同质人群、干预措施、比较和结果(PICO)的研究;4) 使用全球质量评估,包括评估外部有效性、模型有效性和内部有效性;5) 如果证据主体足够大且同质,则使用GRADE方法对证据进行总结,如果不是这样,则使用描述性总结。结论:我们提出了使用HOMIS设计、实施和报告SR和MA的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Homeopathy: Recommendations for summarising evidence from homeopathic intervention studies (Sum-HomIS recommendations)

Background

Mainly due to the use of different inclusion criteria and quality assessments, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) with homeopathic intervention studies (HOMIS) have shown inconsistent results. We aimed to build recommendations for “Summarizing evidence from Homeopathic Intervention Studies” (Sum-HomIS recommendations) in order to approach standardization.

Methods

Against the background of a framework-project to update the evidence from homeopathic intervention studies, we launched an expert panel on how to assess the quality of HOMIS and how to summarize evidence from HOMIS. The results of a literature review and the expert communications in advance of the panel as well as the consensus from the discussions are presented here. We added specific considerations for homeopathic veterinary research.

Results

On top of the general guidelines when planning a review we report five basic Sum-HomIS recommendations. These are: 1) A broad literature search including special archives and consideration of so-called grey-literature; 2) The inclusion of controlled observational studies alongside randomized controlled trials; 3) The choice of a clear clinical research question in the terms that, if possible, the review project includes studies with predominantly homogeneous populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes (PICOs); 4) The use of a global quality assessment including the assessment of external, model and internal validity; 5) A summary of evidence using the GRADE-approach if the body of evidence is sufficiently large and homogenous or a descriptive summary if it is not so.

Conclusions

We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信