ReviewThe Veterinary record2017
Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 2.
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 5 papers.
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.
- Placebo effects in alternative medical treatments for anxiety: false hope or healing potential?CNS spectrums · 2025Trial
- Bibliometric trend analysis of non-conventional (alternative) therapies in veterinary research.The veterinary quarterly · 2022Article
- The Decline and Fall of Materia Medica and the Rise of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Veterinary Medicine.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 2.The Veterinary record · 2017Review
- Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 1.The Veterinary record · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Part 2 of this narrative review outlines the theoretical and practical bases for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of conventional medicines and homeopathic products. Known and postulated mechanisms of action are critically reviewed. The evidence for clinical efficacy of products in both categories, in the form of practitioner experience, meta-analysis and systematic reviews of clinical trial results, is discussed. The review also addresses problems and pitfalls in assessing data, and the ethical and negative aspects of pharmacology and homeopathy in veterinary medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.