Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a preliminary version of an instrument that attempts to assess the quality of reports of individualized homeopathic prescriptions in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 15 judges produced an initial versi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of integrative medicine 2014, Vol.12 (1), p.13-19
Hauptverfasser: Saha, Subhranil, Koley, Munmun, Ganguly, Subhasish, Rath, Prasanta, Chowdhury, Pulak Roy, Hossain, Seikh Intaj
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 19
container_issue 1
container_start_page 13
container_title Journal of integrative medicine
container_volume 12
creator Saha, Subhranil
Koley, Munmun
Ganguly, Subhasish
Rath, Prasanta
Chowdhury, Pulak Roy
Hossain, Seikh Intaj
description OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a preliminary version of an instrument that attempts to assess the quality of reports of individualized homeopathic prescriptions in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 15 judges produced an initial version of the instrument through iterative Delphi rounds and pilot-tested the instrument on five clinical trials. Later they assessed, under blind conditions, the individualization quality of 40 randomly-selected research reports. The final version of the instrument included six criteria. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background. RESULTS: The instrument appeared to have adequate face and content validity, acceptable internal consistency or reliability (Cronbach's a 0.606 - 0.725), significant discriminant validity (F = 398.7; P 〈 0.000 1), moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss K 0.533), agreeable test-retest reliability (Cohen's K 0.765 - 0.934), moderate sensitivity (0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.253- 0.566), and high specificity (1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.891-1.000). CONCLUSION: The initial data suggest that this instrument may be a promising systematic tool amendable for further development.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S2095-4964(14)60009-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492700430</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>48449062</cqvip_id><els_id>S2095496414600091</els_id><sourcerecordid>1492700430</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-aa0a80bd3f8daaea382bf146360d9c0e825e3fe4a544dd518a208f069d96cb153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMFu1DAURbMAtVXpJ4DMrixSnmPHxCuEChSkSl0U1pbHfukYOXHGdkYalnwG38I_8Qs4nWG2XVm67977nk9VvaRwRYGKt_cNyLbmUvBLyt8IAJA1fVadHeXT6iKlH0WHToiWyZPqtOFc0FbSs-rXR9yiD5MbH0heIzHRZYxOkz5EglvtZ52X2WbW3uUdCT1xo3VbZxfhZxmGsShkHQYMk85rZ4jxbnRGe5JLkScRpxCXkr9_fhNNpojeDW7UcUdSnu3uRfW81z7hxeE9r75__vTt-kt9e3fz9frDbW2YpLnWGnQHK8v6zmqNmnXNqqdcMAFWGsCuaZH1yHXLubUt7XQDXQ9CWinMirbsvLrc904xbGZMWQ0uGfRejxjmpCiXzTsAzqBY273VxJBSxF5N0Q3lYkVBLdTVI3W14C059Uhd0ZJ7dVgxrwa0x9R_3sXwfm_A8tGtw6iScTgatC6iycoG9-SK14fT1mF82BSsxy2841yCaNg_DJ2jjQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1492700430</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Saha, Subhranil ; Koley, Munmun ; Ganguly, Subhasish ; Rath, Prasanta ; Chowdhury, Pulak Roy ; Hossain, Seikh Intaj</creator><creatorcontrib>Saha, Subhranil ; Koley, Munmun ; Ganguly, Subhasish ; Rath, Prasanta ; Chowdhury, Pulak Roy ; Hossain, Seikh Intaj</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a preliminary version of an instrument that attempts to assess the quality of reports of individualized homeopathic prescriptions in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 15 judges produced an initial version of the instrument through iterative Delphi rounds and pilot-tested the instrument on five clinical trials. Later they assessed, under blind conditions, the individualization quality of 40 randomly-selected research reports. The final version of the instrument included six criteria. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background. RESULTS: The instrument appeared to have adequate face and content validity, acceptable internal consistency or reliability (Cronbach's a 0.606 - 0.725), significant discriminant validity (F = 398.7; P 〈 0.000 1), moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss K 0.533), agreeable test-retest reliability (Cohen's K 0.765 - 0.934), moderate sensitivity (0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.253- 0.566), and high specificity (1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.891-1.000). CONCLUSION: The initial data suggest that this instrument may be a promising systematic tool amendable for further development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2095-4964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S2095-4964(14)60009-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24461591</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adult ; clinical trials ; consensus ; Delphi ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Female ; homeopathy ; Homeopathy - standards ; Humans ; individualization ; Male ; Precision Medicine - standards ; Quality Control ; reliability ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; validity ; 个性化 ; 个性品质 ; 临床试验 ; 可信区间 ; 评价标准 ; 试验仪器 ; 试验报告 ; 质量</subject><ispartof>Journal of integrative medicine, 2014, Vol.12 (1), p.13-19</ispartof><rights>2014 Journal of Integrative Medicine Editorial Office. E-edition published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-aa0a80bd3f8daaea382bf146360d9c0e825e3fe4a544dd518a208f069d96cb153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-aa0a80bd3f8daaea382bf146360d9c0e825e3fe4a544dd518a208f069d96cb153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/87110A/87110A.jpg</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,4010,27904,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24461591$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saha, Subhranil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koley, Munmun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganguly, Subhasish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rath, Prasanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chowdhury, Pulak Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hossain, Seikh Intaj</creatorcontrib><title>Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study</title><title>Journal of integrative medicine</title><addtitle>Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a preliminary version of an instrument that attempts to assess the quality of reports of individualized homeopathic prescriptions in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 15 judges produced an initial version of the instrument through iterative Delphi rounds and pilot-tested the instrument on five clinical trials. Later they assessed, under blind conditions, the individualization quality of 40 randomly-selected research reports. The final version of the instrument included six criteria. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background. RESULTS: The instrument appeared to have adequate face and content validity, acceptable internal consistency or reliability (Cronbach's a 0.606 - 0.725), significant discriminant validity (F = 398.7; P 〈 0.000 1), moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss K 0.533), agreeable test-retest reliability (Cohen's K 0.765 - 0.934), moderate sensitivity (0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.253- 0.566), and high specificity (1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.891-1.000). CONCLUSION: The initial data suggest that this instrument may be a promising systematic tool amendable for further development.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>clinical trials</subject><subject>consensus</subject><subject>Delphi</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>homeopathy</subject><subject>Homeopathy - standards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>individualization</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Precision Medicine - standards</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>reliability</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>validity</subject><subject>个性化</subject><subject>个性品质</subject><subject>临床试验</subject><subject>可信区间</subject><subject>评价标准</subject><subject>试验仪器</subject><subject>试验报告</subject><subject>质量</subject><issn>2095-4964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkMFu1DAURbMAtVXpJ4DMrixSnmPHxCuEChSkSl0U1pbHfukYOXHGdkYalnwG38I_8Qs4nWG2XVm67977nk9VvaRwRYGKt_cNyLbmUvBLyt8IAJA1fVadHeXT6iKlH0WHToiWyZPqtOFc0FbSs-rXR9yiD5MbH0heIzHRZYxOkz5EglvtZ52X2WbW3uUdCT1xo3VbZxfhZxmGsShkHQYMk85rZ4jxbnRGe5JLkScRpxCXkr9_fhNNpojeDW7UcUdSnu3uRfW81z7hxeE9r75__vTt-kt9e3fz9frDbW2YpLnWGnQHK8v6zmqNmnXNqqdcMAFWGsCuaZH1yHXLubUt7XQDXQ9CWinMirbsvLrc904xbGZMWQ0uGfRejxjmpCiXzTsAzqBY273VxJBSxF5N0Q3lYkVBLdTVI3W14C059Uhd0ZJ7dVgxrwa0x9R_3sXwfm_A8tGtw6iScTgatC6iycoG9-SK14fT1mF82BSsxy2841yCaNg_DJ2jjQ</recordid><startdate>2014</startdate><enddate>2014</enddate><creator>Saha, Subhranil</creator><creator>Koley, Munmun</creator><creator>Ganguly, Subhasish</creator><creator>Rath, Prasanta</creator><creator>Chowdhury, Pulak Roy</creator><creator>Hossain, Seikh Intaj</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>W91</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2014</creationdate><title>Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study</title><author>Saha, Subhranil ; Koley, Munmun ; Ganguly, Subhasish ; Rath, Prasanta ; Chowdhury, Pulak Roy ; Hossain, Seikh Intaj</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-aa0a80bd3f8daaea382bf146360d9c0e825e3fe4a544dd518a208f069d96cb153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>clinical trials</topic><topic>consensus</topic><topic>Delphi</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>homeopathy</topic><topic>Homeopathy - standards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>individualization</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Precision Medicine - standards</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>reliability</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>validity</topic><topic>个性化</topic><topic>个性品质</topic><topic>临床试验</topic><topic>可信区间</topic><topic>评价标准</topic><topic>试验仪器</topic><topic>试验报告</topic><topic>质量</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saha, Subhranil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koley, Munmun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganguly, Subhasish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rath, Prasanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chowdhury, Pulak Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hossain, Seikh Intaj</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-医药卫生</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of integrative medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saha, Subhranil</au><au>Koley, Munmun</au><au>Ganguly, Subhasish</au><au>Rath, Prasanta</au><au>Chowdhury, Pulak Roy</au><au>Hossain, Seikh Intaj</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of integrative medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine</addtitle><date>2014</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>13</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>13-19</pages><issn>2095-4964</issn><abstract>OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a preliminary version of an instrument that attempts to assess the quality of reports of individualized homeopathic prescriptions in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 15 judges produced an initial version of the instrument through iterative Delphi rounds and pilot-tested the instrument on five clinical trials. Later they assessed, under blind conditions, the individualization quality of 40 randomly-selected research reports. The final version of the instrument included six criteria. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background. RESULTS: The instrument appeared to have adequate face and content validity, acceptable internal consistency or reliability (Cronbach's a 0.606 - 0.725), significant discriminant validity (F = 398.7; P 〈 0.000 1), moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss K 0.533), agreeable test-retest reliability (Cohen's K 0.765 - 0.934), moderate sensitivity (0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.253- 0.566), and high specificity (1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.891-1.000). CONCLUSION: The initial data suggest that this instrument may be a promising systematic tool amendable for further development.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>24461591</pmid><doi>10.1016/S2095-4964(14)60009-1</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2095-4964
ispartof Journal of integrative medicine, 2014, Vol.12 (1), p.13-19
issn 2095-4964
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492700430
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
clinical trials
consensus
Delphi
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
homeopathy
Homeopathy - standards
Humans
individualization
Male
Precision Medicine - standards
Quality Control
reliability
Surveys and Questionnaires
validity
个性化
个性品质
临床试验
可信区间
评价标准
试验仪器
试验报告
质量
title Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T07%3A48%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Developing%20the%20criteria%20for%20evaluating%20quality%20of%20individualization%20in%20homeopathic%20clinical%20trial%20reporting%EF%BC%9A%20a%20preliminary%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20integrative%20medicine&rft.au=Saha,%20Subhranil&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=13-19&rft.issn=2095-4964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S2095-4964(14)60009-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1492700430%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1492700430&rft_id=info:pmid/24461591&rft_cqvip_id=48449062&rft_els_id=S2095496414600091&rfr_iscdi=true