PubMed · 14512056
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Wernerman. 2003. Developing future investigators.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5614(03)00154-7
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy. METHODOLOGY: Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references. RESULTS: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AIM: To provide guidance on how to gather and evaluate evidence from the literature on the efficacy of imaging, using as an example the assessment of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. This method was adopted for evaluating evidence for the musculoskeletal section of the 5th edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between 1966 and July 2001 was carried out. Eligible articles described studies in patients with suspected osteomyelitis and who were diagnosed using MRI. Search strategies were developed to identify relevant imaging studies. Studies included in the systematic review were selected using predefined criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios for MRI reported in the studies were used to evaluate the value of the procedure in osteomyelitis. Where the above were not reported, they were calculated by the reviewers. RESULTS: The average sensitivity of MRI in osteomyelitis was 91% (range 76-100%), the average specificity was 82% (range 65-96%), average accuracy was 88% (range 71-97%), and the average positive likelihood ratio was 7.8 (range 2.3-21.1). Four studies evaluated the use of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot, two in osteomyelitis of the lower extremities, while four each evaluated the use of MRI in vertebral osteomyelitis, in the diagnosis of any form of osteomyelitis, osteomyelitis in spinal cord-injured patients and in cranial osteomyelitis. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of literature can be used to obtain evidence on the value of imaging procedures. The quality of the studies included in the review should always be considered when selecting studies to limit bias. In our example, MRI appears sensitive, specific and accurate in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis at different sites.