Talk:Shang reviews of homeopathy: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Talk page generated using Special:MetadataForm)
 
imported>Gareth Leng
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==Impact of study==
The study has been highly cited; by 2011, it had received more than 200 citations recorded in the ISI Web of Knowledge, but mostly in articles specifically discussing homeopathy and mostly in the CAM literature. The generalised implications have been explicitly picked up by a few, e.g. Finckh A, Tramer MR (2010)Osteoarthritis. (Small studies overestimate the benefit of therapies for OA ''Nature Rev Rheumatol'' 6:617-618  a meta-epidemiological study has revealed that the inclusion of small studies in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis interventions could lead to an overestimation of the benefit of these interventions. Does this mean meta-analyses should be restricted to trials with large sample sizes?)
*Begg CB (1985) A measure to aid in the interpretation of published clinical trials ''Stat Med'' 4:1-9 PMID 3992068
*Sehon S, Stanley D (2010) Evidence and simplicity: why we should reject homeopathy ''J eval clin Pract'' 16:276-281
*Moreno SG ''et al.'' (2009) Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications
''BMJ''  339
*Pandolfi M (2010) Homeopathy: ex nihilo fit nihil. ''Eur J Intern Med'' 21:147-8 PMID 20493411

Revision as of 11:05, 23 March 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Major meta-analyses of the efficacy of homeopathy, using new methods, performed for the government of Switzerland [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Health Sciences [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup categories:  Complementary and alternative medicine and Pseudoscience
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

Impact of study

The study has been highly cited; by 2011, it had received more than 200 citations recorded in the ISI Web of Knowledge, but mostly in articles specifically discussing homeopathy and mostly in the CAM literature. The generalised implications have been explicitly picked up by a few, e.g. Finckh A, Tramer MR (2010)Osteoarthritis. (Small studies overestimate the benefit of therapies for OA Nature Rev Rheumatol 6:617-618 a meta-epidemiological study has revealed that the inclusion of small studies in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis interventions could lead to an overestimation of the benefit of these interventions. Does this mean meta-analyses should be restricted to trials with large sample sizes?)

  • Begg CB (1985) A measure to aid in the interpretation of published clinical trials Stat Med 4:1-9 PMID 3992068
  • Sehon S, Stanley D (2010) Evidence and simplicity: why we should reject homeopathy J eval clin Pract 16:276-281
  • Moreno SG et al. (2009) Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications

BMJ 339

  • Pandolfi M (2010) Homeopathy: ex nihilo fit nihil. Eur J Intern Med 21:147-8 PMID 20493411
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Shang_reviews_of_homeopathy&oldid=806581"