Van de 105 onderzoeken met interpreteerbare uitkomsten, waren er 81 die positieve resultaten te zien gaven, waaronder gerandomiseerde, gecontroleerde studies die hoge scores hadden voor randomisering, blindering, steekproefomvang, en andere methodologische criteria. ^[1]

Ze vonden het volgende:

The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. 

De onderzoekers, drie reguliere epidemiologen uit Maastricht, kwamen tot de volgende conclusie:

"The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible".

En

"The evidence presented in his review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications".


Maar eveneens:

At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. 

Referenties

Share |

Commentaar

Schrijf commentaar
Naam:
Onderwerp:

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/