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

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.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. August 2022

Angenommen: 02. Dezember 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. März 2023

• 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
• 2 Teut M, Walach H, Varanasi R. et al. Recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathy. Homeopathy 2020; 109: 114-125
• 3 Witt C, Linde K. Clinical Research in Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Munich: Elsevier; 2011
• 4 Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J 2003; 20: 54-60
• 5 Holmes MA, Cockcroft PD. Handbook of Veterinary Clinical Research. Oxford, UK; Ames, Iowa: Blackwell; 2008
• 6 Thrusfield M, Christley R. Veterinary Epidemiology, 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2018
• 7 Lawson A, Pinchbeck G. Study design synopsis: observational study design in equine research. Equine Vet J 2021; 53: 638-644
• 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
• 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
• 10 Concato J, Horwitz RI. Beyond randomised versus observational studies. Lancet 2004; 363: 1660-1661
• 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
• 12 Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types: an overview. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014; 24: 199-210
• 13 Porta M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 6th ed. Oxford University Press; 2016
• 14 Sedgwick P. Randomised controlled trials: internal versus external validity. BMJ 2014; 348: g1742
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 24 Hoehne SN, Kruppert A, Boller M. Small animal cardiopulmonary -resuscitation (CPR) in general practice. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 2020; 162: 735-753
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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/
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 40 Christopher M, Young K. Writing for Publication in Veterinary Medicine. A Practical Guide for Researchers and Clinicians. Wiley-Blackwell; 2015
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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