toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author (up) Clausen, J.; Albrecht, H.; Mathie, R.T. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Veterinary clinical research database for homeopathy: placebo-controlled trials Type Journal Article
  Year 2013 Publication Complementary Therapies in Medicine Abbreviated Journal Complement Ther Med  
  Volume 21 Issue 2 Pages 115-120  
  Keywords Animals; Biomedical Research; Clinical Trials as Topic/methods; Clinical Trials as Topic/veterinary; Databases, Factual; Homeopathy/veterinary; Hospitals, Animal; Placebo Effect; Placebos/administration & dosage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/veterinary; Research Design; Placebos; Homeopathy; Cattle; Horses; Pigs; Swine; Dogs; Sheep; Chickens; Goats; Rabbits  
  Abstract BACKGROUND: Veterinary homeopathy has led a somewhat shadowy existence since its first introduction. Only in the last three decades has the number of clinical trials increased considerably. This literature is generally not well perceived, which may be partly a consequence of the diffuse and somewhat inaccessible nature of some of the relevant research publications. The Veterinary Clinical Research Database for Homeopathy (VetCR) was launched in 2006 to provide information on existing clinical research in veterinary homeopathy and to facilitate the preparation of systematic reviews. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present report is to provide an overview of this first database on clinical research in veterinary homeopathy, with a special focus on its content of placebo controlled clinical trials and summarising what is known about placebo effects in animals. RESULTS: In April 2012, the VetCR database contained 302 data records. Among these, 203 controlled trials were identified: 146 randomised and 57 non-randomised. In 97 of those 203 trials, the homeopathic medical intervention was compared to placebo. COMMENT: A program of formal systematic reviews of peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials in veterinary homeopathy is now underway; detailed findings from the program's data extraction and appraisal approach, including the assessment of trial quality (risk of bias), will be reported in due course.  
  Address Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, 45276 Essen, Germany. info@Carstens-Stiftung.de  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition 2013/03/19  
  ISSN 1873-6963 (Electronic) 0965-2299 (Linking) ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes PubMed searched Approved yes  
  Call Number UoN @ douglas.grindlay @ 891 Serial 2377  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author (up) Mathie, R.T.; Clausen, J. doi  openurl
  Title Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised trials controlled by other than placebo Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication BMC Veterinary Research Abbreviated Journal BMC Vet Res  
  Volume 11 Issue Pages 236  
  Keywords Homeopathy  
  Abstract BACKGROUND: No systematic review has previously been carried out on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy in which the control group was an intervention other than placebo (OTP). For eligible peer-reviewed RCTs, the objectives of this study were to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic intervention compared with an active comparator or with no treatment. METHODS: Our systematic review approach complied fully with the PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Cochrane methods were applied to assess RoB and to derive effect size using standard meta-analysis methods. Based on a thorough and systematic literature search, the following key attributes of the published research were distinguished: individualised homeopathy (n = 1 RCT)/non-individualised homeopathy (n = 19); treatment (n = 14)/prophylaxis (n = 6); active controls (n = 18)/untreated controls (n = 2). The trials were highly diverse, representing 12 different medical conditions in 6 different species. RESULTS: No trial had sufficiently low RoB to be judged as reliable evidence: 16 of the 20 RCTs had high RoB; the remaining four had uncertain RoB in several domains of assessment. For three trials with uncertain RoB and without overt vested interest, it was inconclusive whether homeopathy combined with conventional intervention was more or was less effective than conventional intervention alone for modulation of immune response in calves, or in the prophylaxis of cattle tick or of diarrhoea in piglets. CONCLUSION: Due to the poor reliability of their data, OTP-controlled trials do not currently provide useful insight into the effectiveness of homeopathy in animals.  
  Address British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton, LU1 3BE, UK. rmathie@britishhomeopathic.org. Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, D-45276, Essen, Germany. j.clausen@carstens-stiftung.de.  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition 2015/09/16  
  ISSN 1746-6148 (Electronic) 1746-6148 (Linking) ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, HomVetCR, LILACS, PubMed, Science Citation Index, and Scopus searched. Approved yes  
  Call Number UoN @ rachel.dean @ 1387 Serial 2853  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author (up) Mathie, R.T.; Clausen, J. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Veterinary homeopathy: meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Homeopathy : the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy Abbreviated Journal Homeopathy  
  Volume 104 Issue 1 Pages 3-8  
  Keywords Animals; Cattle; Dogs; Pigs; Goats; Homeopathy  
  Abstract BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy has not previously been undertaken. For all medical conditions and species collectively, we tested the hypothesis that the outcome of homeopathic intervention (treatment and/or prophylaxis, individualised and/or non-individualised) is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos. METHODS: All facets of the review, including literature search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, were described in an earlier paper. A trial was judged to comprise reliable evidence if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specific domains of assessment. Effect size was reported as odds ratio (OR). A trial was judged free of vested interest if it was not funded by a homeopathic pharmacy. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model, with hypothesis-driven sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias. RESULTS: Nine of 15 trials with extractable data displayed high risk of bias; low or unclear risk of bias was attributed to each of the remaining six trials, only two of which comprised reliable evidence without overt vested interest. For all N = 15 trials, pooled OR = 1.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.56]; P = 0.01. For the N = 2 trials with suitably reliable evidence, pooled OR = 2.62 [95% CI, 1.13 to 6.05]; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis provides some very limited evidence that clinical intervention in animals using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos. The low number and quality of the trials hinders a more decisive conclusion.  
  Address British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK. Electronic address: rmathie@britishhomeopathic.org. Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, D-45276 Essen, Germany.  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition 2015/01/13  
  ISSN 1476-4245 (Electronic) 1475-4916 (Linking) ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Hom-Inform, HomVetCR (Carstens-Stiftung), LILACS, PubMed, Science Citation Index and Scopus searched Approved yes  
  Call Number UoN @ douglas.grindlay @ 1306 Serial 2790  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author (up) Mathie, R.T.; Clausen, J. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised placebo-controlled trials Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication The Veterinary Record Abbreviated Journal Vet Rec  
  Volume 175 Issue 15 Pages 373-81  
  Keywords Animals; Bias (Epidemiology); Homeopathy/veterinary; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Veterinary Medicine/methods; Cattle; Dogs; Pigs; Goats  
  Abstract A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy has not previously been undertaken. Using Cochrane methods, this review aims to assess risk of bias and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic intervention compared with placebo for each eligible peer-reviewed trial. Judgement in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise reliable evidence if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specified domains. A trial was considered to be free of vested interest if it was not funded by a homeopathic pharmacy. The 18 eligible RCTs were disparate in nature, representing four species and 11 different medical conditions. Reliable evidence, free from vested interest, was identified in two trials: homeopathic Coli had a prophylactic effect on porcine diarrhoea (odds ratio 3.89, 95 per cent confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 12.68, P=0.02); and individualised homeopathic treatment did not have a more beneficial effect on bovine mastitis than placebo intervention (standardised mean difference -0.31, 95 per cent CI, -0.97 to 0.34, P=0.35). Mixed findings from the only two placebo-controlled RCTs that had suitably reliable evidence precluded generalisable conclusions about the efficacy of any particular homeopathic medicine or the impact of individualised homeopathic intervention on any given medical condition in animals.  
  Address British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK. Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, D-45276 Essen, Germany.  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition 2014/10/18  
  ISSN 2042-7670 (Electronic) 0042-4900 (Linking) ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Hom-Inform, HomVetCR (Carstens-Stiftung), LILACS, PubMed, Science Citation Index and Scopus searched Approved yes  
  Call Number UoN @ douglas.grindlay @ 1260 Serial 2748  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author (up) Mathie, R.T.; Hacke, D.; Clausen, J. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review Type Journal Article
  Year 2012 Publication Homeopathy Abbreviated Journal Homeopathy  
  Volume 101 Issue 4 Pages 196-203  
  Keywords Animal Diseases/therapy; Animals; Databases, Bibliographic; Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data; Forms and Records Control/statistics & numerical data; Homeopathy/methods/statistics & numerical data; Materia Medica/therapeutic use; Peer Review, Research; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Veterinary Medicine/methods/statistics & numerical data; Cattle; Horses; Sheep; Dogs; Pigs; Swine; Chickens; Goats  
  Abstract INTRODUCTION: Systematic review of the research evidence in veterinary homeopathy has never previously been carried out. This paper presents the search methods, together with categorised lists of retrieved records, that enable us to identify the literature that is acceptable for future systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in veterinary homeopathy. METHODS: All randomised and controlled trials of homeopathic intervention (prophylaxis and/or treatment of disease, in any species except man) were appraised according to pre-specified criteria. The following databases were systematically searched from their inception up to and including March 2011: AMED; Carstens-Stiftung Homeopathic Veterinary Clinical Research (HomVetCR) database; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Embase; Hom-Inform; LILACS; PubMed; Science Citation Index; Scopus. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty records were retrieved; 38 satisfied the acceptance criteria (substantive report of a clinical treatment or prophylaxis trial in veterinary homeopathic medicine randomised and controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal), and were thus eligible for future planned systematic review. Approximately half of the rejected records were theses. Seven species and 27 different species-specific medical conditions were represented in the 38 papers. Similar numbers of papers reported trials of treatment and prophylaxis (n=21 and n=17 respectively) and were controlled against placebo or other than placebo (n=18, n=20 respectively). Most research focused on non-individualised homeopathy (n=35 papers) compared with individualised homeopathy (n=3). CONCLUSION: The results provide a complete and clarified view of the RCT literature in veterinary homeopathy. We will systematically review the 38 substantive peer-reviewed journal articles under the main headings: treatment trials; prophylaxis trials.  
  Address British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK. rmathie@britishhomeopathic.org  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition 2012/10/24  
  ISSN 1476-4245 (Electronic) 1475-4916 (Linking) ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes AMED, Carstens-Stiftung Homeopathic Veterinary Clinical Research (HomVetCR) database, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Hom-Informa, LILACS, PubMed, Science Citation Index and Scopus searched Approved yes  
  Call Number UoN @ douglas.grindlay @ 858 Serial 2497  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: