Reporting experiments in homeopathic basic research (REHBaR)--a detailed guideline for authors.

Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, D-Essen, Germany.
Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy (Impact Factor: 0.75). 10/2009; 98(4):287-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.09.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy is an important issue as comprehensive description of what exactly was done is required. So far, there is no guideline for authors available, unlike criteria catalogues common in clinical research.
A Delphi Process was conducted, including a total of five rounds, three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last five years were involved.
A checklist of 23 items was obtained and supplemented with detailed examples emphasizing what each item implies. Background, objectives and possible hypotheses should be given in the part 'introduction'. Special emphasis is put on the 'materials and methods' section, where a detailed description of chosen controls, object of investigation, experimental setup, replication, parameters, intervention, allocation, blinding, and statistical methods is required. The section 'results' should present sufficient details on analysed data, descriptive as well as inferential. Authors should discuss their results and give an interpretation in the context of current evidence.
A guideline for Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research (REHBaR) was compiled to be applied by authors when preparing their manuscripts, and to be used by scientific journals in the reviewing process. Furthermore the guideline is a commitment to a certain minimum quality level needed in basic research, e.g. blinding and randomisation. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Plant systems are useful research tools to address basic questions in homeopathy as they make it possible to overcome some of the drawbacks encountered in clinical trials (placebo effect, ethical issues, duration of the experiment, and high costs). The objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis whether 7-day-old wheat seedlings, grown from seeds either poisoned with a sublethal dose of As2O3 or unpoisoned, showed different significant gene expression profiles after the application of ultrahigh diluted As2O3 (beyond Avogadro's limit) compared to water (control). The results provided evidence for a strong gene modulating effect of ultrahigh diluted As2O3 in seedlings grown from poisoned seeds: a massive reduction of gene expression levels to values comparable to those of the control group was observed for several functional classes of genes. A plausible hypothesis is that ultrahigh diluted As2O3 treatment induced a reequilibration of those genes that were upregulated during the oxidative stress by bringing the expression levels closer to the basal levels normally occurring in the control plants.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 11/2014; 2014. DOI:10.1155/2014/851263 · 2.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Specific efficacy of homeopathically prepared substances in high dilution levels is controversial due to the comparably low number of randomized controlled clinical trials and due to the low concentrations of the substances potentised. No generally accepted theoretical model is currently available to explain specific effects of such preparations. In order to unequivocally demonstrate any such effects, experimental research has to meet very high standards. Aims: Objective was to compile guidelines for homeopathic basic research regarding experimental design, implementation, execution, evaluation and publication.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines. Design Systematic review. Data sources Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed “evaluations”) (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. Study selection English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). Data extraction Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals’ websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors’ analysis, a mean summed score. Results 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15 249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. Conclusions The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals’ endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. Systematic review registration Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.
    BMJ (online) 06/2014; 348:g3804. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g3804 · 16.38 Impact Factor