Generalizability of Homeopathic Prognostic Factor Research Outcome in COVID-19 Treatment: Comparison of Data.

Background/Objective  During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several homeopathic prognostic factor research (PFR) projects have been undertaken. We found two projects with comparable outcomes to assess consistency and possible flaws. Methods  Two comparisons were made. (1) Outcome...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Homeopathy Vol. 111; no. 3; pp. 157 - 164
Autores principales: Rutten, Lex, Miglani, Anjali, Gold, Peter, Manchanda, Raj Kumar, Chakraborty, Moumita, Meena, Baljeet Singh, Sharma, Kavita, Gupta, Meeta, Sharma, Brender, Sharma, Ashok, Rani, Purnima, Singh, Rahul Kumar
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Thieme Medical Publishing Inc. 2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=158143549&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 158143549
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14754916
        L6I
      jtl: Homeopathy
      issn: 14754916
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2022
      vid: 111
      iid: 3
      pid: 2811
      pub: Thieme Medical Publishing Inc.
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158143549
        158143549
        158143549
        10.1055/s-0041-1732307
        158143549
      ppf: 157
      ppct: 7
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Generalizability of Homeopathic Prognostic Factor Research Outcome in COVID-19 Treatment: Comparison of Data.
      aug:
        au:
          Rutten, Lex
          Miglani, Anjali
          Gold, Peter
          Manchanda, Raj Kumar
          Chakraborty, Moumita
          Meena, Baljeet Singh
          Sharma, Kavita
          Gupta, Meeta
          Sharma, Brender
          Sharma, Ashok
          Rani, Purnima
          Singh, Rahul Kumar
        affil: Aard 10, 4813NN Breda, The Netherlands
      sug:
        subj:
          COVID-19 Prognosis
          Homeopathy
          Research, Alternative Therapies
          COVID-19 Drug Therapy
          Homeopathic Agents Therapeutic Use
          Antiviral Agents Therapeutic Use
          Drug Efficacy Evaluation
          Human
          Comparative Studies
          Descriptive Statistics
          Consensus
          Physicians
          India
          Databases, Health
          COVID-19 Symptoms
          Confidence Intervals
          Dyspnea Drug Therapy
          Headache
          Shivering
          Pharyngitis Drug Therapy
          Muscle Pain Drug Therapy
          Prescribing Patterns
          Homeopathic Agents Administration and Dosage
      ab: Background/Objective  During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several homeopathic prognostic factor research (PFR) projects have been undertaken. We found two projects with comparable outcomes to assess consistency and possible flaws. Methods  Two comparisons were made. (1) Outcome of a PFR data collection from the Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) by about 100 doctors with 541 cases was compared with a previous analysis of 161 cases in the same database. (2) The updated LMHI database was also compared with a data collection carried out in India by four doctors with a total of 1,445 cases. Differences that resulted in conflicting outcomes (indication in one, contraindication in the other) were examined for possible causes. Results  There was only a single outcome in the updated LMHI database that conflicted with the previous dataset, and this could have been due to statistical variation. The Indian data contained many cases, from few doctors, while the LMHI database had few cases per doctor, but many doctors. The overlap between the projects (individual cases entered in both) was between zero and 22%. In 72 comparisons we found six (8.3%) conflicting outcomes. Possible causes were statistical error due to small numbers of cases and/or observers, confirmation bias, and keynote prescribing if this resulted in symptoms being inadequately checked. Conclusion  There was little conflict between the outcomes of the two versions of one project and between the two different PFR projects. Differences could mostly be explained by causes that can be managed. This consistency should primarily be interpreted as showing a strong overall consensus between homeopathic practitioners worldwide, but with variation of consensus between small groups of practitioners.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N