Title |
Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-49 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Robert T Mathie, Helmut Roniger, Michel Van Wassenhoven, Joyce Frye, Jennifer Jacobs, Menachem Oberbaum, Marie-France Bordet, Chaturbhuja Nayak, Gilles Chaufferin, John A Ives, Flávio Dantas, Peter Fisher |
Abstract |
A method for assessing the model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy is needed. To date, only conventional standards for assessing intrinsic bias (internal validity) of trials have been invoked, with little recognition of the special characteristics of homeopathy. We aimed to identify relevant judgmental domains to use in assessing the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). We define MVHT as the extent to which a homeopathic intervention and the main measure of its outcome, as implemented in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reflect 'state-of-the-art' homeopathic practice. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
Spain | 2 | 13% |
Canada | 1 | 7% |
United States | 1 | 7% |
Australia | 1 | 7% |
Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 12 | 80% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
Colombia | 1 | 2% |
Italy | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 47 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 26% |
Researcher | 11 | 21% |
Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 15% |
Unknown | 7 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 53% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Unknown | 10 | 19% |