Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 52, Issue 7 , Pages 631-636 , July 1999

Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy

  • Klaus Linde

      Affiliations

    • Münchener Modell—Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Dr. K. Linde, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Kaiserstr. 9, 80801 Munich, Germany
    • ,
  • Michael Scholz

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    • ,
  • Gilbert Ramirez

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Northern Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX USA
    • ,
  • Nicola Clausius

      Affiliations

    • Münchener Modell—Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    • ,
  • Dieter Melchart

      Affiliations

    • Münchener Modell—Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    • ,
  • Wayne B. Jonas

      Affiliations

    • Office of Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD USA

,Accepted 8 March 1999.

References 

  1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412
  2. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad AR. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:661–666
  3. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 1998;352:609–613
  4. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists). Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73
  5. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:300–301
  6. Olkin I. Invited commentary (Re: “A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.”). Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:297–299
  7. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, et al.  Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet. 1997;350:834–843
  8. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carrol D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Lavaghan DJ, et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (is blinding necessary?). Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12
  9. Linde K, Worku F, Stör W, Wiesner-Zechweister M, Pothenceuu R, Weinschitz T. Randomized clinical trials of acupuncture for asthma—a systematic review. Fortschr Komplementärmed. 1996;3:148–155
  10. Linde K, Ramirez G, Mulrow CD, Pauls A, Weidenhammer W, Melchart D. St John’s wort for depression—an overview and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1996;313:253–258
  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188
  12. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1995;14:395–411
  13. Laird NM, Ware JR. Random-effects models of longitudinal data. Biometrics. 1982;38:963–974
  14. Walach H, Haeusler W, Lowes T, Mussbach D, Schawell U, Springer W. Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headache. Cephalalgia. 1997;17:119–126
  15. Whitmarsh TE, Coleston-Shields DM, Steiner TJ. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1997;17:600–604
  16. Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy—a state-of-the-art review. J Alt Complement Med. 1998;4:371–388
  17. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2:31–39
  18. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339–352
  19. Greenland S. Meta-analysis. In:  Rothman K,  Greenland S editor. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Raven; 1998;
  20. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 1996;12:195–208
  21. Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Bueller HR, Dekker E, Howmes DW, Vandenbroucke JP. Low-molecular weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopedic surgery (A meta-analysis). Lancet. 1992;340:152–156
  22. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin J. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized trials (The CONSORT statement). JAMA. 1996;276:637–639

PII: S0895-4356(99)00048-7

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 52, Issue 7 , Pages 631-636 , July 1999

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution