Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Homeopathy: Recommendations for summarising evidence from homeopathic intervention studies (Sum-HomIS recommendations).
Evidence
Guidelines
Homeopathic intervention studies
Homeopathy
Meta-analysis
Research methods
Systematic review
Journal
Complementary therapies in medicine
ISSN: 1873-6963
Titre abrégé: Complement Ther Med
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 9308777
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
04
05
2023
revised:
16
09
2023
accepted:
23
10
2023
medline:
5
12
2023
pubmed:
29
10
2023
entrez:
28
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37898390
pii: S0965-2299(23)00086-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2023.102999
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102999Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest Authors declare none.