Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26371366›Full record

SynthesisBMC veterinary research2015

Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised trials controlled by other than placebo.

Robert T Mathie, Jürgen Clausen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert T MathieBritish Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton, LU1 3BE, UK. rmathie@britishhomeopathic.org.
Jürgen ClausenKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, D-45276, Essen, Germany. j.clausen@carstens-stiftung.de.
Bristol Homeopathic Hospital · GBKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNo 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.

methodsOur 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.

resultsNo 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.

conclusionDue to the poor reliability of their data, OTP-controlled trials do not currently provide useful insight into the effectiveness of homeopathy in animals.

Indexed as

AnimalsHomeopathyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearchVeterinary Medicine

Identifiers

PMID26371366
PMCPMC4570221
OpenAlexW1842330489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.