Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28801498›Full record

ReviewThe Veterinary record2017

Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 1.

P Lees, L Pelligand, M Whiting, D Chambers, P-L Toutain, M L Whitehead

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Veterinary record, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

P LeesRoyal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK.
L PelligandRoyal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK.
M WhitingRoyal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK.
D ChambersHall Manor, Kelly, Lifton, Devon PL16 0HQ, UK.
P-L ToutainToxalim, Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse, France.
M L WhiteheadCertSAM, MRCVS, Chipping Norton Veterinary Hospital, Banbury Road, Chipping Norton, Oxon OX7 5SY, UK.
Royal Veterinary College · GBChipping Norton War Memorial Community Hospital · GBÉcole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse · FRKelly Services (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many years after its invention around 1796, homeopathy was widely used in people and later in animals. Over the intervening period (1796-2016) pharmacology emerged as a science from Materia Medica (medicinal materials) to become the mainstay of veterinary therapeutics. There remains today a much smaller, but significant, use of homeopathy by veterinary surgeons. Homeopathic products are sometimes administered when conventional drug therapies have not succeeded, but are also used as alternatives to scientifically based therapies and licensed products. The principles underlying the veterinary use of drug-based and homeopathic products are polar opposites; this provides the basis for comparison between them. This two-part review compares and contrasts the two treatment forms in respect of history, constituents, methods of preparation, known or postulated mechanisms underlying responses, the legal basis for use and scientific credibility in the 21st century. Part 1 begins with a consideration of why therapeutic products actually work or appear to do so.

Indexed as

Animal DiseasesAnimalsHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHomeopathyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeVeterinary DrugsVeterinary Drugs

Identifiers

PMID28801498
PMCPMC5738587
OpenAlexW2744005386

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.