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 , Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni , Stephan Baumgartner , Harald Walach , Michael Frass , 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":10545,"journal":{"name":"Complementary therapies in medicine","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 102999"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"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 , Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni , Stephan Baumgartner , Harald Walach , Michael Frass , 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\":10545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Complementary therapies in medicine\",\"volume\":\"79 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102999\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"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\":\"Complementary therapies in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complementary therapies in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229923000869","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
期刊介绍:
Complementary Therapies in Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal that has considerable appeal to anyone who seeks objective and critical information on complementary therapies or who wishes to deepen their understanding of these approaches. It will be of particular interest to healthcare practitioners including family practitioners, complementary therapists, nurses, and physiotherapists; to academics including social scientists and CAM researchers; to healthcare managers; and to patients. Complementary Therapies in Medicine aims to publish valid, relevant and rigorous research and serious discussion articles with the main purpose of improving healthcare.