Linked Life Data

9884176

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9884176

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1999-4-7
pubmed:abstractText
The meta-analysis of homeopathy trials that appeared in the Lancet in 1997 seemed to endorse the experience of practitioners and patients that homeopathic medicines have specific clinically relevant effects. However, results from later unsuccessful trials, and negative inferences from a review of trials for a condition excluded from the meta-analysis--delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS)--have since been presented to suggest that the meta-analysis may well have overestimated the positive effects of homeopathy, and that the "placebo question is still not resolved." This article reviews the evidence underlying this challenge to the meta-analysis and homeopathy, and demonstrates that it would be valid if it were based on: a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions; sound and transparent review methods; and a reliable and unconfounded clinical treatment model for testing the ultramolecular hypothesis. It is suggested that different models are needed to answer different questions.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
1075-5535
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
4
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
389-98
pubmed:dateRevised
2011-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1998
pubmed:articleTitle
Out of step with the Lancet homeopathy meta-analysis: more objections than objectivity?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, Alcuin College, University of York, United Kingdom. md118@york.ac.uk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article