'An innocent deception': placebo controls in the St Petersburg homeopathy trial, 1829-1830.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Against all odds-the persistent popularity of homeopathy.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2020
   Review
2. Mondegreens and Soramimi as a method to induce misperceptions of speech content--influence of familiarity, wittiness, and language competence.PloS one · 2014
   Article
3. John Hunter: learning from natural experiments, 'placebos', and the state of mind of a patient in the 18th century.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009
   Article
4. A brief history of homeopathy.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006
   Article
5. The Bell Tolls for Homeopathy: Time for Change in the Training and Practice of North American Naturopathic Physicians.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicine
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Journals join the podcast revolution.2006

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as