Benutzer:DanSy/H Studien
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
Metastudien
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Halberstein RA, Sirkin A, Ojeda-Vaz MM., When less is better: a comparison of Bach Flower Remedies and homeopathy (2010)[1]
- Da hats auch case studies dabei...
- CONCLUSIONS: Extensive testing has produced mixed or equivocal results regarding the efficacy of both of these health care systems. While a variety of positive outcomes have been frequently recorded with Homoeopathy and BFR treatments, it is likely that the placebo effect operates to a significant extent in both approaches.
- Randomised controlled trials in homeopathy (2009) [2]
- Dafür, dass da alles drin ist, wo RCT drauf steht, ein mageres Ergebnis, finde ich
- There are a total of 142 peer-reviewed RCTs in 129 papers reporting placebo controlled or non-placebo controlled RCTs of homeopathy: 63 (44%) had positive findings; 11 (8%) were negative; 68 (48%) were non-conclusive.
- Aijing Shang, Karin Huwiler-Müntener, Linda Nartey, Peter Jüni, Stephan Dörig, Jonathan A C Sterne, Daniel Pewsner, Matthias Egger (2005)[3][4] Info:[5]
- Our study powerfully illustrates the interplay and cumulative effect of different sources of bias. We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible, but we have shown that the effects seen in placebocontrolled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis.
- Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel J, Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. (2000)[6]
- However, sensitivity analysis showed that the P value tended towards a non-significant value (P = 0.08) as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner based on their level of quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.
- Linde K, Melchart D., RCT of individualized homeopathy. (1998)[7]
- ...but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen. CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies.
-
- The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
- Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. (1999)[10]
- Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.
- Kommentar – Klaus Linde, München (Forsch Komplementärmed 2006;13:52–57 DOI: 10.1159/000090625)[11] (Das wird gerne unter den Teppich gekehrt...)
- Das heisst, unsere Schlussfolgerung, dass die Ergebnisse unserer eigenen Meta-Analyse nicht «kompatibel» mit der Hypothese seien, dass homöopathische Interventionen ausschliesslich auf Plazeboeffekte zurückzuführen seien, war bereits damals so nicht mehr haltbar. Auch wir hatten 1999 bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass unsere 1997er Metaanalyse die Effekte zumindest deutlich überschätzt haben dürfte.
-
- At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.
- Kommentar von Ernst E. (2002): A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy.
- Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions.
- Die lange Liste der Metaanalysen, Supplementary memorandum submitted by Edzard Ernst (HO 16a) (November 2009)
Metastudien Potenzierung
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10(-23): a bibliometric study. (Fulltext) Endler, 2010
- We identified 24 experimental models in basic research on high homeopathic potencies, which were repeatedly investigated. 22 models were reproduced with comparable results, 6 models with different results, and repetition showed no results for 15 models. Independent reproductions with either comparable or different results were found for seven models. We encourage further repetition trials of published studies, in order to learn more about the model systems used and in order to test their repeatability.
- Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies. No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments
- We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments, only 6 were of high quality. Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.
Outcomstudien
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Schlussbericht: Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin (PEK) Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG
- study of 6544 consecutive follow-up patients during a 6-year period. : Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ., United Bristol Healthcare, National Health Service Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom. David.Spence@ubht.nhs.uk [16]
- Outcome-Studie mit 3981 Teilnehmern: Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Baur R, Willich SN. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center [17]
- "Evaluation Naturheilverfahren und Umweltmedizin" des Freiburger Instituts für Umweltmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene. (vor März 2003)[18]
WHO
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]Kritik an WHO-Entwurf von Edzard Ernst
WHO does not recommend the use of homeopathy for HIV, malaria, TB, influenza and infant diarrhoea
HTA
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Schlussbericht (24.4.2005) ([19] von da)
Oscillococcinum
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]Warum wird dieses Cochrane-Review eigentlich alle zwei Jahre neu gepostet [20] [21] [22]?
- Also für die, die es interessiert, die Französischen Kollegen waren fleissig: [23] und haben die 2 Studien identifiziert.
- Andrew Vickers, a research methodologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, concluded that clinical studies of Oscillococcinum found no evidence it prevents the flu, though the compound probably does cut the flu's duration by about six hours. Dr. Vickers says larger studies are needed before the drug could be recommended for routine treatment. [26] (November 30, 2004)
- Traditional homeopathic remedies are so diluted that a dose is unlikely to contain even a single molecule of the original substance, which "makes it pretty unlikely that they're of any value at all," says researcher Andrew Vickers of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
- Bottom line: "Even a very good trial probably does not, on its own, provide sufficient evidence, given how unlikely it is that homeopathy works," says Vickers.[27] (2006?)
- Reviewer Andrew Vickers, associate attending research methodologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, says he is cautious about putting too much stake in this rather slim body of evidence. “You can do a scientific experiment and it can give the wrong results for a variety of reasons, and one would be just bad luck,” Vickers said.[28] (February 18, 2008)
- Also ihr könnt mir erzählen was ihr wollt, aber seit dem Andrew Vickers das Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital verlassen hat, sehe ich seine Zuversicht sehr schwinden.
Sehrtiefpotenzen
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]| Substanz | Einsatz H | Nebenwirkungen W | Einsatz W | Nachweise |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Echinacea D1 | Innen: Halsschmerzen, Entzündungen, Erkältung, Grippe, Fieberhafte Infekte
Aussen: Akne[29] |
Keine ausser parenteral: Schüttelfrost, Fieberreaktionen, Übelkeit und Erbrechen[30] | Innen: Behandlung rezidivierender Infekte im Bereich der Atemwege und der ableitenden Harnwege.
Aussen: Schlecht heilende, oberflächliche Wunden.[31] |
H:Akute Rhinosinusitis |
Umfragen
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (August 2009)[32]
- erfreut sich die von Samuel Hahnemann begründete Homöopathie steigender Beliebtheit. 1993 besaßen 2500 Ärzte in Deutschland die Zusatzbezeichnung Homöopath, heute sind es weit über 5000. Gut 70 Prozent der Deutschen wünschen, auch mit Homöopathika behandelt zu werden; drei von vier Ärzten verschreiben sie. Zum Stand April 2006 übernehmen bereits 50 Krankenkassen die ärztlichen Therapiekosten der Homöopathie. AOK und Techniker Krankenkasse verhandeln.
Erste Placebostudien
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]Dr. George Löhner (Redakteur der ALLGEMEINEN ZEITUNG VON UND FÜR BAYERN in Nürnberg 1835), für die Gesellschaft wahrheitsliebender Männer. Die Homoöopathischen Kochsalzversuche zu Nürnberg. Nürnberg, Allgemeine Zeitung von und für Bayern. [33][34] Erwähnung von George Löhner Deutschsprachige EbM-Pioniere, Hygea: Centralorgan für die homöopathische oder specifische Heilkunst. Von Ludwig Griesselich, Die Revolution auf dem Lande. Von Günter Dippold
- Randomisierte, doppelblinde, placebokontrollierte AMP mit C30 NaCl. 55 Versuchspersonen
- Resultat:
Art Total NaCl Placebo Nichts bemerkt 42 19 23 Etwas bemerkt 9 6 3 Keine Rückmeldung 4
- Konklusion: Da die Meisten keine Befindlichkeitsänderung erfahren haben, kann man daraus mit Recht die Identität der beiden Flüssigkeiten folgern.
Simile
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]Tolerance of the "Simile" => [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
Höhe des Placeboeffektes
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Conclusions: Placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine.
Substanzen
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- peer-reviewed research literature of perioperative trauma where Arnica was the only homeopathic medicine used and restricting the review to placebo-controlled trials that were explicitly randomised and double-blinded, the following more detailed picture emerges. Trials on Arnica for stroke and for muscle soreness have been omitted from this specific update: Total number of trials: 12, No. with positive findings: 3, No. with negative findings or non-statistically significant: 9
AMP
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. (F. Dantas, 1996) (doi:10.1016/j.homp.2006.11.005, Fulltext)
- The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required.
- A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials (Jim Rogers, 2010) (Fulltext)
- This review looked at all HPTs’ performed up to 2009 and found that a small percentage of the total (3%) of such trials were of high quality [...] An analysis of the outcomes of such trials failed to find evidence that Homeopathic medicines produce pathogenetic effects in healthy adults any different to those which occur in participants taking identical placebo medicines
- Do homeopathic medicines provoke adverse effects? A systematic review (F. Dantas, 2000)
- Magic of Signs: A Nonlocal Interpretation of Homeopathy (Harald Walach 1999)
- The pillar of homeopathy, pathogenetic trials (Dantas, 1996), rests on shaky ground. The experiments conducted and published since World War II are not very persuasive from a scientific point of view (Dantas et al., 1999). The ones conducted in the United Kingdom are slightly more methodologically rigorous but not very persuasive either (Dantas & Fisher, 1998). The experiments which I have conducted myself (Walach, 1993; Walach, 1997a; Walach, 1997b; Walach et al., 1997b) do not show a clear pattern of different or more symptoms with homeopathic substance than placebo. Modern homeopathic researchers like Jeremy Sherr or David Riley admit in personal discussions that very specific symptoms can be observed with placebo, however, these are rarely published. It seems to be an open secret that true homeopathic symptoms, meaning specific clear-cut symptoms known to belong to the remedy, can also be observed with placebo, albeit normally only in the context of a homeopathic remedy proving.
Diverses
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]H freundlich
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen & Publikationen zur Homöopathie Dr. Lisa Eckhard (2008) Das Gleiche von der dzvhae[40]