Forschende Komplementarmedizin (2006) · 2014
A minimum protocol for randomised homeopathic drug proving as basis for further research.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jansen Jean Pierre, Jong Mats, Hildingsson Ingegerd, Jong Miek C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In order to further improve the methodology and quality of data collection in homeopathic drug provings (HDP), there is a need for a minimum standardised HDP protocol. The objective of the present study was to test the feasibility of this type of protocol.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol embraced a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. It was approved by an ethics review committee. During the pre-approval phase, discordances between the regulatory and homeopathic requirements for the protocol were checked and solutions found. The study medication was Potentilla anserina. 6 participants received verum and 4 placebo. The resulting symptom list will be published elsewhere. The procedure was accepted by all participants.
RESULTS: Three important issues were addressed: the requirement to keep all participants blinded; the adverse events reporting to regulatory authorities; and the necessity of a placebo control group. Other issues that need further investigations were identified, e.g. sample size, observation period and dosage regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: A minimum protocol of a HDP is feasible. All important design elements of HDP could be solved in discussions with the respective regulatory authorities, and participating homeopaths accepted the procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol embraced a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. It was approved by an ethics review committee. During the pre-approval phase, discordances between the regulatory and homeopathic requirements for the protocol were checked and solutions found. The study medication was Potentilla anserina. 6 participants received verum and 4 placebo. The resulting symptom list will be published elsewhere. The procedure was accepted by all participants.
RESULTS: Three important issues were addressed: the requirement to keep all participants blinded; the adverse events reporting to regulatory authorities; and the necessity of a placebo control group. Other issues that need further investigations were identified, e.g. sample size, observation period and dosage regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: A minimum protocol of a HDP is feasible. All important design elements of HDP could be solved in discussions with the respective regulatory authorities, and participating homeopaths accepted the procedure.