Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Homeopathy 2023; 112(04): 226-239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1760845
Review Article

Recommendations for Designing, Conducting and Reporting Clinical Observational Studies in Homeopathic Veterinary Medicine

Petra Weiermayer 
1   WissHom: Research Department, Scientific Society for Homeopathy, Köthen, Germany
,
Michael Frass
2   Department of Medicine I (emeritus), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
3   Institute for Homeopathic Research, Vienna, Austria
,
Philippa Fibert
4   Department of Psychology and Pedagogic Science, St Mary's University, Twickenham, United Kingdom
,
Christien Klein-Laansma
5   Louis Bolk Institute, Health and Nutrition, Bunnik, The Netherlands
,
Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni
6   WissHom: Scientific Society for Homeopathy, Köthen, Germany
7   Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Herdecke, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding The project was partly funded by Homöopathie-Stiftung des DZVhÄ (Foundation of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors), Berlin, and Robert Bosch Stiftung (Robert Bosch Foundation), Stuttgart, Germany. The funders had no influence on the conduct, content, implementation or publication of the project.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Clinical observational studies are an important methodological approach in human and veterinary research, examining and describing treatment experience with good external validity. There are currently few observational studies in the field of homeopathic veterinary medicine.

Aim The aim of the study was to develop recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathic veterinary medicine.

Materials and Methods A literature review was performed using various search strategies for identifying guidelines and checklist tools relevant for observational studies, veterinary research and homeopathy. Useful guidelines were selected. Prior recommendations for designing and conducting observational studies in human homeopathic medicine were supplemented with recommendations for homeopathic veterinary medicine that were evaluated by an expert panel.

Results The veterinary extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology – Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement was identified as a useful tool to improve the reporting quality of observational studies, and it has been supplemented here with additional recommendations that are applicable to homeopathy. STROBE-Vet is complemented in the literature by several reports, checklists and guidelines on veterinary medicine in general, such as the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) and the Animal Health Surveillance Reporting Guidelines (AHSURED). Identified items that related to laboratory animal research were excluded as non-relevant to our study.

Conclusion Clinical observational studies are an important methodological approach, having currently unrealized potential in the field of homeopathic veterinary medicine. With relatively minor adjustments, the practical guidelines and checklists available to researchers in designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in human homeopathic medicine have been adapted for homeopathic veterinary medicine, for which high quality can be assured by implementing recommendations such as those in STROBE-Vet. With the emergence of the One Health concept, the COHERE checklist can be viewed with growing significance.

Keywords

clinical observational studies - homeopathic veterinary medicine - guidelines - recommendations

Authors' Contributions

P.W., M.F., P.F., C.K.-L., and S.U.-Z. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. They drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content. They did the final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.




Publication History

Received: 22 August 2022

Accepted: 02 December 2022

Article published online:
16 March 2023

© 2023. The Faculty of Homeopathy. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sargeant JM, O'Connor AM, Dohoo IR. et al. Methods and processes of developing the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology – veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement. J Vet Intern Med 2016; 30: 1887-1895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Teut M, Walach H, Varanasi R. et al. Recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathy. Homeopathy 2020; 109: 114-125
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Witt C, Linde K. Clinical Research in Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Munich: Elsevier; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J 2003; 20: 54-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Holmes MA, Cockcroft PD. Handbook of Veterinary Clinical Research. Oxford, UK; Ames, Iowa: Blackwell; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Thrusfield M, Christley R. Veterinary Epidemiology, 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2018
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lawson A, Pinchbeck G. Study design synopsis: observational study design in equine research. Equine Vet J 2021; 53: 638-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Porzsolt F, Rocha NG, Toledo-Arruda AC. et al. Efficacy and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different messages. Pragmat Obs Res 2015; 6: 47-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1887-1892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Concato J, Horwitz RI. Beyond randomised versus observational studies. Lancet 2004; 363: 1660-1661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Colditz GA. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2010; 50:: 10-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types: an overview. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014; 24: 199-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Porta M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 6th ed. Oxford University Press; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Sedgwick P. Randomised controlled trials: internal versus external validity. BMJ 2014; 348: g1742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Teut M, van Haselen RA, Rutten L, Lamba CD, Bleul G, Ulbrich-Zürni S. Case reporting in homeopathy – an overview of guidelines and scientific tools. Homeopathy 2022; 111: 2-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aubry E, Issautier MN, Champomier D, Terzan L. Early udder inflammation in dairy cows treated by a homeopathic medicine (Dolisovet): a prospective observational pilot study. Homeopathy 2013; 102: 139-144
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Maeschli A, Schmidt A, Ammann W, Schurtenberger P, Maurer E, Walkenhorst M. Einfluss eines komplementärmedizinischen telefonischen Beratungssystems auf den Antibiotikaeinsatz bei Nutztieren in der Schweiz. Complement Med Res 2019; 26: 174-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stevens M, Piepers S, De Vliegher S. Mastitis prevention and control practices and mastitis treatment strategies associated with the consumption of (critically important) antimicrobials on dairy herds in Flanders, Belgium. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99: 2896-2903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Orjales I, López-Alonso M, Rodríguez-Bermúdez R, Rey-Crespo F, Villar A, Miranda M. Use of homeopathy in organic dairy farming in Spain. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 102-108
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Keller D, Blanco-Penedo I, De Joybert M, Sundrum A. How target-orientated is the use of homeopathy in dairy farming? A survey in France, Germany and Spain. Acta Vet Scand 2019; 61: 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Davis MF, Rankin SC, Schurer JM, Cole S, Conti L, Rabinowitz P. COHERE Expert Review Group. Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE). One Health 2017; 4: 14-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kostoulas P, Nielsen SS, Branscum AJ. et al. STARD-BLCM: standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies that use Bayesian Latent Class Models. Prev Vet Med 2017; 138: 37-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Boller M, Fletcher DJ, Brainard BM. et al. Utstein-style guidelines on uniform reporting of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs and cats. A RECOVER statement. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2016; 26: 11-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hoehne SN, Kruppert A, Boller M. Small animal cardiopulmonary -resuscitation (CPR) in general practice. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 2020; 162: 735-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 deLaforcade A, Bacek L, Blais MC. et al. 2022 update of the consensus on the rational use of antithrombotics and thrombolytics in veterinary critical care (CURATIVE) domain 1 – defining populations at risk. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2022; 32: 289-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Comin A, Grewar J, van Schaik G. et al. Development of reporting guidelines for animal health surveillance—AHSURED. Front Vet Sci 2019; 6: 426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A. et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2020; 18: e3000410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Scudamore CL, Soilleux EJ, Karp NA. et al. Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA guidelines. J Pathol 2016; 238: 359-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Smith AJ, Clutton RE, Lilley E, Hansen KEA, Brattelid T. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim 2018; 52: 135-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kolodziejski PA, Pruszynska-Oszmalek E, Nowak T. et al. Serum spexin concentration, body condition score and markers of obesity in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2021; 35: 397-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schick AR, Hayes GM, Singh A, Mathews KG, Higginbotham ML, Sherwood JM. Development and validation of a hemangiosarcoma likelihood prediction model in dogs presenting with spontaneous hemoabdomen: the HeLP score. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2019; 29: 239-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hielm-Björkman AK, Rita H, Tulamo RM. Psychometric testing of the Helsinki chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis. Am J Vet Res 2009; 70: 727-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Belshaw Z, Asher L, Harvey ND, Dean RS. Quality of life assessment in domestic dogs: an evidence-based rapid review. Vet J 2015; 206: 203-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hielm-Björkman AK, Kapatkin AS, Rita HJ. Reliability and validity of a visual analogue scale used by owners to measure chronic pain attributable to osteoarthritis in their dogs. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72: 601-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 University of Nottingham Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine. . The Veterinary Clinical Trials Network (VCTN). Accessed December 2, 2022. Available at: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cevm/practice-based-research/the-veterinary-clinical-trials-network-vctn/
    PubMed
  • 36 O'Connor AM, Sargeant JM, Dohoo IR. et al. Explanation and elaboration document for the STROBE-Vet statement: strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology-veterinary extension. J Vet Intern Med 2016; 30: 1896-1928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG. et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Cook JL, Evans R, Conzemius MG. et al. Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 905-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Christopher M, Young K. Writing for Publication in Veterinary Medicine. A Practical Guide for Researchers and Clinicians. Wiley-Blackwell; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A. et al; RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Dreyer NA, Bryant A, Velentgas P. The GRACE checklist: a validated assessment tool for high quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2016; 22: 1107-1113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 361-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Dean ME, Coulter MK, Fisher P, Jobst K, Walach H. Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 42-45
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 666-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1061-1070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Jarde A, Losilla J-M, Vives J. Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies: a systematic review. Anales de Psicología 2012; 28: 617-628
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Campbell JD, Perry R, Papadopoulos NG. et al. The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies. Clin Transl Allergy 2019; 9: 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Gaertner K, Hahn R, Razlog R. et al. CATHIS 2.0 template (2.0). 2022 Accessed July 12, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5813499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar