Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Homeopathy: Recommendations for summarising evidence from homeopathic intervention studies (Sum-HomIS recommendations).

BACKGROUND: Mainly due to the use of different inclusion criteria and quality assessments, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) with homeopathic intervention studies (HOMIS) have shown inconsistent results. We aimed to build recommendations for "Summarizing evidence from Homeopathic Intervention Studies" (Sum-HomIS recommendations) in order to approach standardization. METHODS: Against the background of a framework-project to update the evidence from homeopathic intervention studies, we launched an expert panel on how to assess the quality of HOMIS and how to summarize evidence from HOMIS. The results of a literature review and the expert communications in advance of the panel as well as the consensus from the discussions are presented here. We added specific considerations for homeopathic veterinary research. RESULTS: On top of the general guidelines when planning a review we report five basic Sum-HomIS recommendations. These are: 1) A broad literature search including special archives and consideration of so-called grey-literature; 2) The inclusion of controlled observational studies alongside randomized controlled trials; 3) The choice of a clear clinical research question in the terms that, if possible, the review project includes studies with predominantly homogeneous populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes (PICOs); 4) The use of a global quality assessment including the assessment of external, model and internal validity; 5) A summary of evidence using the GRADE-approach if the body of evidence is sufficiently large and homogenous or a descriptive summary if it is not so. CONCLUSIONS: We present recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting SRs and MAs with HOMIS.

Recommendations for Designing, Conducting and Reporting Clinical Observational Studies in Homeopathic Veterinary Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Clinical observational studies are an important methodological approach in human and veterinary research, examining and describing treatment experience with good external validity. There are currently few observational studies in the field of homeopathic veterinary medicine. AIM: The aim of the study was to develop recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathic veterinary medicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was performed using various search strategies for identifying guidelines and checklist tools relevant for observational studies, veterinary research and homeopathy. Useful guidelines were selected. Prior recommendations for designing and conducting observational studies in human homeopathic medicine were supplemented with recommendations for homeopathic veterinary medicine that were evaluated by an expert panel. RESULTS: The veterinary extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement was identified as a useful tool to improve the reporting quality of observational studies, and it has been supplemented here with additional recommendations that are applicable to homeopathy. STROBE-Vet is complemented in the literature by several reports, checklists and guidelines on veterinary medicine in general, such as the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) and the Animal Health Surveillance Reporting Guidelines (AHSURED). Identified items that related to laboratory animal research were excluded as non-relevant to our study. CONCLUSION: Clinical observational studies are an important methodological approach, having currently unrealized potential in the field of homeopathic veterinary medicine. With relatively minor adjustments, the practical guidelines and checklists available to researchers in designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in human homeopathic medicine have been adapted for homeopathic veterinary medicine, for which high quality can be assured by implementing recommendations such as those in STROBE-Vet. With the emergence of the One Health concept, the COHERE checklist can be viewed with growing significance.

Case Reporting in Homeopathy-An Overview of Guidelines and Scientific Tools.

Case reports have been of central importance to the development of homeopathy over the past 200 years. With a special focus on homeopathy, we give an overview on guidelines and tools that may help to improve the quality of case reports. Reporting guidelines such as CARE (Case Report), HOM-CASE (Homeopathic Clinical Case Reports), and the WissHom Documentation Standard help to improve the quality of reporting and strengthen the scientific value of a case report. Additional scientific tools such as prospective outcome assessment, prognostic factor research, cognition-based medicine, and the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy (MONARCH) score may be helpful in improving case documentation and evaluation.

Recommendations for Designing, Conducting and Reporting Observational Studies in Homeopathy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized placebo-controlled trials are considered to be the gold standard in clinical research and have the highest importance in the hierarchical system of evidence-based medicine. However, from the viewpoint of decision makers, due to lower external validity, practical results of efficacy research are often not in line with the huge investments made over decades. METHOD: We conducted a narrative review. With a special focus on homeopathy, we give an overview on cohort, comparative cohort, case-control and cross-sectional study designs and explain guidelines and tools that help to improve the quality of observational studies, such as the STROBE Statement, RECORD, GRACE and ENCePP Guide. RESULTS: Within the conventional medical research field, two types of arguments have been employed in favor of observational studies. First, observational studies allow for a more generalizable and robust estimation of effects in clinical practice, and if cohorts are large enough, there is no over-estimation of effect sizes, as is often feared. We argue that observational research is needed to balance the current over-emphasis on internal validity at the expense of external validity. Thus, observational research can be considered an important research tool to describe "real-world" care settings and can assist with the design and inform the results of randomised controlled trails. CONCLUSIONS: We present recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathy and provide recommendations to complement the STROBE Statement for homeopathic observational studies.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Other-than-Placebo Controlled, Trials of Individualised Homeopathic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study focuses on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment (IHT) in which the control (comparator) group was other than placebo (OTP). AIMS: To determine the comparative effectiveness of IHT on health-related outcomes in adults and children for any clinical condition that has been the subject of at least one OTP-controlled trial. For each study, to assess the risk of bias and to determine whether its study attitude was predominantly 'pragmatic' or 'explanatory'. METHODS: Systematic review. For each eligible trial, published in the peer-reviewed literature up to the end of 2015, we assessed its risk of bias (internal validity) using the seven-domain Cochrane tool, and its relative pragmatic or explanatory attitude (external validity) using the 10-domain PRECIS tool. We grouped RCTs by whether they examined IHT as an alternative treatment (study design Ia), adjunctively with another intervention (design Ib), or compared with a no-intervention group (design II). For each RCT, we identified a 'main outcome measure' to use in meta-analysis: 'relative effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR; values >1 favouring homeopathy) or standardised mean difference (SMD; values < 0 favouring homeopathy). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, representing 11 different medical conditions, were eligible for study. Five of the RCTs (four of which in design Ib) were judged to have pragmatic study attitude, two were explanatory, and four were equally pragmatic and explanatory. Ten trials were rated 'high risk of bias' overall: one of these, a pragmatic study with design Ib, had high risk of bias solely regarding participant blinding (a bias that is intrinsic to such trials); the other trial was rated 'uncertain risk of bias' overall. Eight trials had data that were extractable for analysis: for four heterogeneous trials with design Ia, the pooled OR was statistically non-significant; collectively for three clinically heterogeneous trials with design Ib, there was a statistically significant SMD favouring adjunctive IHT; in the remaining trial of design 1a, IHT was non-inferior to fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality, the small number and the heterogeneity of studies, the current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of IHT. Generalisability of findings is limited by the variable external validity identified overall; the most pragmatic study attitude was associated with RCTs of adjunctive IHT. Future OTP-controlled trials in homeopathy should aim, as far as possible, to promote both internal validity and external validity.

The N-of-1 Clinical Trial: A Timely Research Opportunity in Homeopathy.

BACKGROUND: The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is considered the 'gold standard' for establishing treatment efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention, but its data do not infer response in an individual patient. Individualised clinical care, a fundamental principle in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), including homeopathy, seems well disposed in principle to being researched by single-patient (N-of-1) study design. Guidelines for reporting N-of-1 trials have recently been developed. OBJECTIVE: To overview the current status in the literature of the N-of-1 method and its application in medicine, including CAM. To consider whether the N-of-1 trial design offers an opportunity for novel research in homeopathy. N-OF-1 TRIAL DESIGN: The N-of-1 trial applies the principles of the conventional crossover, blinded, RCT design. The treatment under study and the comparator are repeated in a randomised order, and with suitable washout time, over a defined period. N-of-1 design is constrained for use in chronic stable conditions, and for interventions that have quick onset and cessation of effect, with modest or negligible carryover. Outcome data can be aggregated and interpreted for the individual subject; they can also be pooled with data from several similar N-of-1 trials, enabling more generalisable conclusions. THE N-OF-1 TRIAL IN CAM: The typical individualisation of patient care can be accommodated in N-of-1 study design if the patient and the specific therapeutic intervention are selected within the constraints of the method. Application of the N-of-1 method in CAM has been advocated but has been mainly limited, in practice, to a small number of studies in herbal and traditional Chinese medicine. THE N-OF-1 TRIAL IN HOMEOPATHY: Individualised homeopathy can be accommodated for investigation within the same methodological constraints; less in-depth homeopathic approaches to prescribing are also amendable to investigation using the N-of-1 method. No such studies have been published. We identify three main targets in its ready applicability to homeopathy: (1) to optimise clinical care in an individual patient; (2) to investigate whether the outcomes of treatment using homeopathy differ from those of placebo; (3) to aggregate data from a series of N-of-1 trials to enable broader conclusions about a group of patients or intervention. CONCLUSION: The N-of-1 trial design offers important new investigative possibilities in homeopathy and should be explored as a means to optimise individualised health care or investigate effectiveness of the homeopathic intervention compared with placebo in individual subjects.