Download PDF
Homeopathy 2015; 104(03): 190-196
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.002
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2014

Data collection: Treat every variable as a treasure

Lex ALB Rutten
Further Information

Publication History

Received14 April 2014
revised21 October 2014

accepted16 November 2014

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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
 

  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gill C.J., Sabin L., Schmid C.H. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 2005; 330: 1080-1083.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McKenzie C.R. Increased sensitivity to differentially diagnostic answers using familiar materials: implications for confirmation bias. Mem & Cognition 2006; 34 (03) 577-588.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rutten L.A.L.B. The importance of case histories for accepting and improving homeopathy. Complement Ther Med 2013; 21: 565-570.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ [accessed 3.04.14].
    PubMed