Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy · 2006
Evaluation of specific and non-specific effects in homeopathy: feasibility study for a randomised trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Fisher Peter, McCarney Rob, Hasford Christian, Vickers Andrew
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, in terms of acceptability to patients, physicians and other staff; data return and statistical power of a study to elucidate the relative contributions of specific and non-specific effects in homeopathic treatment of dermatitis.
DESIGN: Randomised, controlled 4-arm trial, 2 arms double-blind.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five adult patients with dermatitis.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to: 'fast track' open verum homeopathy, 'fast track' double-blind verum homeopathy, 'fast track' double-blind placebo homeopathy or waiting list control.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One hundred millimeter visual analogue scale of overall symptom severity; 10 point digital scores of sleep, itching, skin condition; weekly 5-point Likert scale of topical steroid use; Dermatology Life Quality Index at entry and completion.
RESULTS: Recruitment was below target, but the study was acceptable to staff and feasible. Blinded patients were more likely to withdraw (P=0.021, chi2 test). After correction for baseline differences and multiple comparisons, no outcome measure showed statistically significant between group differences. Blindness appeared to have a negative effect, but this was confounded by differential withdrawal.
CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial of this design is unlikely to discriminate the relative contributions of the non-specific and specific effects to the outcome of homeopathic treatment of dermatitis, because of patient preference issues.
DESIGN: Randomised, controlled 4-arm trial, 2 arms double-blind.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five adult patients with dermatitis.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to: 'fast track' open verum homeopathy, 'fast track' double-blind verum homeopathy, 'fast track' double-blind placebo homeopathy or waiting list control.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One hundred millimeter visual analogue scale of overall symptom severity; 10 point digital scores of sleep, itching, skin condition; weekly 5-point Likert scale of topical steroid use; Dermatology Life Quality Index at entry and completion.
RESULTS: Recruitment was below target, but the study was acceptable to staff and feasible. Blinded patients were more likely to withdraw (P=0.021, chi2 test). After correction for baseline differences and multiple comparisons, no outcome measure showed statistically significant between group differences. Blindness appeared to have a negative effect, but this was confounded by differential withdrawal.
CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial of this design is unlikely to discriminate the relative contributions of the non-specific and specific effects to the outcome of homeopathic treatment of dermatitis, because of patient preference issues.