You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert T. Mathie, Nitish Ramparsad, Lynn A. Legg, Jürgen Clausen, Sian Moss, Jonathan R. T. Davidson, Claudia-Martina Messow, Alex McConnachie |
| Abstract |
A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy. Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence. The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 406 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 90 | 22% |
| Germany | 20 | 5% |
| Spain | 16 | 4% |
| United States | 12 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 3% |
| France | 7 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 4 | <1% |
| Mexico | 3 | <1% |
| Denmark | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 29 | 7% |
| Unknown | 211 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 360 | 89% |
| Scientists | 32 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 26% |
| Researcher | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 35 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 442. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2024.
All research outputs
#64,595
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,463
of 323,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.