Critical appraisal tool for homeopathic intervention studies - CATHIS.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Complementary Medicine Research Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1159/000542920
Katharina Gaertner, Robert G Hahn, Radmila Razlog, Frauke Musial, Stephan Baumgartner, Martin Loef, Harald Walach
{"title":"Critical appraisal tool for homeopathic intervention studies - CATHIS.","authors":"Katharina Gaertner, Robert G Hahn, Radmila Razlog, Frauke Musial, Stephan Baumgartner, Martin Loef, Harald Walach","doi":"10.1159/000542920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quality of homeopathic research studies is controversially discussed. In order to improve the overall assessment of homeopathic studies and subsequently facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making, we aimed to combine methodological tools for scientific rigor with tools for external and model validity into one global tool.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Against the background of previous literature and the results of a preparatory survey, a first draft of a potential overarching tool was presented to an expert panel. Then, Delphi feedback rounds were conducted to elicit responses on the feasibility. The resulting preliminary tool was pilot-tested by five research experts on five randomly selected studies. After further optimization another five studies were assessed by the same experts and another three experts tested the second version. The ratings were tested for interrater-reliability using Gwet's AC2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The appraisal tool comprises four domains. These are the assessment of risk-of-bias (1) using the Cochrane Tool, the studies' credibility (2) including the CONSORT statement and its extension on homeopathy, the study interventions' coherence (3) with homeopathic textbooks and previous research, and of the studies' clinical relevance (4). Each domain is assessed using a point system, which is then added up to an overall score. The instrument was evaluated as useful and \"easy to apply\" by the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.88) for five raters, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.79) for additional three raters in round 2, signifying good to moderate interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have developed an applicable and reliable assessment tool for homeopathic intervention studies. Using it in systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase their scientific value.</p>","PeriodicalId":10541,"journal":{"name":"Complementary Medicine Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complementary Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542920","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The quality of homeopathic research studies is controversially discussed. In order to improve the overall assessment of homeopathic studies and subsequently facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making, we aimed to combine methodological tools for scientific rigor with tools for external and model validity into one global tool.

Method: Against the background of previous literature and the results of a preparatory survey, a first draft of a potential overarching tool was presented to an expert panel. Then, Delphi feedback rounds were conducted to elicit responses on the feasibility. The resulting preliminary tool was pilot-tested by five research experts on five randomly selected studies. After further optimization another five studies were assessed by the same experts and another three experts tested the second version. The ratings were tested for interrater-reliability using Gwet's AC2.

Results: The appraisal tool comprises four domains. These are the assessment of risk-of-bias (1) using the Cochrane Tool, the studies' credibility (2) including the CONSORT statement and its extension on homeopathy, the study interventions' coherence (3) with homeopathic textbooks and previous research, and of the studies' clinical relevance (4). Each domain is assessed using a point system, which is then added up to an overall score. The instrument was evaluated as useful and "easy to apply" by the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.88) for five raters, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.79) for additional three raters in round 2, signifying good to moderate interrater reliability.

Conclusion: We have developed an applicable and reliable assessment tool for homeopathic intervention studies. Using it in systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase their scientific value.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Complementary Medicine Research
Complementary Medicine Research Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope ''Complementary Medicine Research'' is an international journal that aims to bridge the gap between conventional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) on a sound scientific basis, promoting their mutual integration. Accordingly, experts of both conventional medicine and CAM medicine cooperate on the journal‘s editorial board, which accepts papers only after a rigorous peer-review process in order to maintain a high standard of scientific quality. Spectrum of ''Complementary Medicine Research'': - Review and Original Articles, Case Reports and Essays regarding complementary practice and methods - Journal Club: Analysis and discussion of internationally published articles in complementary medicine - Editorials of leading experts in complementary medicine - Questions of complementary patient-centered care - Education in complementary medicine - Reports on important meetings and conferences - Society Bulletins of Schweizerische Medizinische Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie (SMGP) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Naturheilkunde Bibliographic Details Complementary Medicine Research Journal Abbreviation: Complement Med Res ISSN: 2504-2092 (Print) e-ISSN: 2504-2106 (Online) DOI: 10.1159/issn.2504-2092 www.karger.com/CMR
期刊最新文献
Integration of Complementary Medicine in Geriatric Nursing Homes: A Prospective Comparative Observational Study. Critical appraisal tool for homeopathic intervention studies - CATHIS. ER+ HER2- Invasive Breast Cancer: Tumor Remission Following Viscum Album Extract - Influenza Vaccine Treatment: A Report of Two Cases. Efficacy and Safety of GutGard® in Managing Gastroesophageal Reflux-Related Symptoms: A Phase III, Single-Centre, Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial to Determine the Effects of Three Nostril Regulated Breathing Practices on Attention and Mood.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1