• Filter By:
• Specialty
• Source
• Condition
• Cancer
• Infectious Disease
• Drug
• Training
• Management
• Procedure
• Therapy
• Vaccine
• Nutrition
• Country

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
ConclusionsThe 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.
Source: Systematic Reviews - March 24, 2017 Category: Global & Universal Source Type: research

The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
The objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with ADHD. Methods Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. Search results will be supplemented by reports from the regulatory and health technology agencies, clinical trials registers and by data requested from trialists and/or pharmaceutical companies. We will consider studies eva...
Source: Systematic Reviews - February 27, 2015 Category: Global & Universal Source Type: research

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
Conclusions Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.
Source: Systematic Reviews - December 6, 2014 Category: Global & Universal Source Type: research