Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review.
Forsch Komplementarmed. 1999 Dec; 6(6):311-20.FK

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy has been independently replicated.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CISCOM was searched using the key words 'homeopathy' and 'basic research'. Further references were obtained from reviews, bibliographies, citation tracking and contact with experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing the effects of one or more homoeopathic medicines to no homoeopathic treatment on any live biological material apart from humans or animals under veterinary care. Research on intoxication and basophil degranulation was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Publications were grouped in experimental models. Studies were considered to comprise the same model if the outcome variable, biological material and homoeopathic treatment were the same. Publications relating to each experimental model were then arranged in chronological order. A model was considered to have been independently replicated if the first author was different and fewer than half of all authors had previously published research using that model.

RESULTS

120 papers reported 61 different experimental models. Only three models were investigated by different research teams: growth of yeast, growth of wheat coleoptiles and ultra-violet-induced erythema in albino guinea pigs. In the case of yeast, attempts to replicate findings showing increased growth after treatment with Pulsatilla were unsuccessful. For wheat, two experiments by different research teams were conducted, but no single hypothesis was tested in both papers with the same result. Different research teams conducted very similar experiments on erythema treatment by Apis, but the methodological quality of the publications was low.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the methodology was questionable.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. vickers@mskcc.org

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

10649002

Citation

Vickers, A J.. "Independent Replication of Pre-clinical Research in Homeopathy: a Systematic Review." Forschende Komplementarmedizin, vol. 6, no. 6, 1999, pp. 311-20.
Vickers AJ. Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review. Forsch Komplementarmed. 1999;6(6):311-20.
Vickers, A. J. (1999). Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 6(6), 311-20.
Vickers AJ. Independent Replication of Pre-clinical Research in Homeopathy: a Systematic Review. Forsch Komplementarmed. 1999;6(6):311-20. PubMed PMID: 10649002.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review. A1 - Vickers,A J, PY - 2000/1/29/pubmed PY - 2000/5/20/medline PY - 2000/1/29/entrez SP - 311 EP - 20 JF - Forschende Komplementarmedizin JO - Forsch Komplementarmed VL - 6 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy has been independently replicated. SEARCH STRATEGY: CISCOM was searched using the key words 'homeopathy' and 'basic research'. Further references were obtained from reviews, bibliographies, citation tracking and contact with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing the effects of one or more homoeopathic medicines to no homoeopathic treatment on any live biological material apart from humans or animals under veterinary care. Research on intoxication and basophil degranulation was excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Publications were grouped in experimental models. Studies were considered to comprise the same model if the outcome variable, biological material and homoeopathic treatment were the same. Publications relating to each experimental model were then arranged in chronological order. A model was considered to have been independently replicated if the first author was different and fewer than half of all authors had previously published research using that model. RESULTS: 120 papers reported 61 different experimental models. Only three models were investigated by different research teams: growth of yeast, growth of wheat coleoptiles and ultra-violet-induced erythema in albino guinea pigs. In the case of yeast, attempts to replicate findings showing increased growth after treatment with Pulsatilla were unsuccessful. For wheat, two experiments by different research teams were conducted, but no single hypothesis was tested in both papers with the same result. Different research teams conducted very similar experiments on erythema treatment by Apis, but the methodological quality of the publications was low. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the methodology was questionable. SN - 1021-7096 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10649002/abstract/Independent_replication_of_pre_clinical_research_in_homeopathy:_a_systematic_review_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.