Data collection: Treat every variable as a treasure

Lex ALB Rutten

doi:10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.002

Homeopathy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Homeopathy 2015; 104(03): 190-196
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.002

Original Paper

Data collection: Treat every variable as a treasure

Autoren

Lex ALB Rutten

Abstract

Collection of data concerning case histories is not yet common in homeopathy despite its great importance for this method. Computer program development progresses slowly and discussion about requirements is scarce.

Two Dutch projects assessed Materia Medica of some homeopathic medicines and six homeopathic symptoms. Especially the second project relied heavily on data collection. In both projects much effort was spent on consensus between participating doctors.

There was much variance between doctors despite our consensus efforts. Assessing causality seems the most important source of bias, there is also much variance in assessing symptoms.

Conclusion: Data collection software should be developed step-by-step, guided by close monitoring and feedback of participating practitioners.

Keywords

Data collection - Causality - Confirmation bias

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Stolper C.F., Rutten A.L.B., Lugten R.F.G., Barthels R.J.W.M.M. Materia medica validation and meta-analysis: a post-graduate course combining learning and research. Homeopath Links 2004; 17 (03) 186-188.
2 Gill C.J., Sabin L., Schmid C.H. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 2005; 330: 1080-1083.
3 Stolper C.F., Rutten A.L.B., Lugten R.F.G., Barthels R.J.W.M.M. Improving homeopathic prescribing by applying epidemiological techniques: the role of likelihood ratio. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 230-238.
4 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Statistical analysis of six repertory-rubrics after prospective assessment applying Bayes' theorem. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 26-34 10.1016/j.homp.2008.11.012.
5 Gagnier J.J., Kienle G., Altman D.G., Moher D., Sox H., Riley D. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Glob Adv Health Med 2013; 2 (05) 38-43 10.7453/gahmj.2013.008.
6 McKenzie C.R. Increased sensitivity to differentially diagnostic answers using familiar materials: implications for confirmation bias. Mem & Cognition 2006; 34 (03) 577-588.
7 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. ‘Cure’ as the gold standard for likelihood ratio assessment: theoretical considerations. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 78-83.
8 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Assessing likelihood ratio of clinical symptoms: handling vagueness. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 182-186.
9 Naranjo C.A., Busto U., Sellers E.M., Sandor P., Ruiz I., Roberts E.A. et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 80: 289-295.
10 Rutten L.A.L.B. The importance of case histories for accepting and improving homeopathy. Complement Ther Med 2013; 21: 565-570.
11 www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ [accessed 3.04.14].