Navigating the Budding Researchers through Different Study Designs in Homeopathy: Part 1 of Research Method Series

Abstract

Homeopathy is a complementary and alternative system of medicine that has been in practice for over 200 years. Despite its widespread use, there is still debate on the effectiveness of homeopathy, and research in this area is controversial.

In the era of evidence-based healthcare, the scientific community seeks high quality evidence for informed clinical decisions. In homeopathy, research awareness is limited among the practitioners and stakeholders, which results in minimum number of studies, and mostly of compromised quality. This largely contributes to the subjected criticism against the effect of homeopathy.

Despite various existing reporting guidelines, methodological frameworks, and research literatures, the submissions of homeopathic research papers reflect serious flaws. In this article, we provide an overview of the research question, hypothesis, objectives, outcome selection and commonly used study designs in homeopathic research.

While homeopathic research can be challenging due to the individualised nature of treatment, a properly framed research question and adequately fitted study designs can help researchers investigate the effect of homeopathic treatment and provide valuable insights into multiple fascinating areas of interest.

In conclusion, this article is intended to provide the readers with a better understanding of the research process and study designs particularly relevant to homeopathy. It is hoped that this will help researchers design better studies to provide more conclusive evidence of the effects of homeopathic treatments.

Keywords

research methodology - homeopathy - research question - hypothesis - study designs - evidence-based medicine

Publication History

Article published online:
04 May 2023

• References

• 1 Bell IR. The evolution of homeopathic theory-driven research and the methodological toolbox. Am Homeopath 2008; 14: 56-74
• 2 Grams N. Homeopathy-where is the science? A current inventory on a pre-scientific artifact. EMBO Rep 2019; 20 (03) e47761
• 3 Mukerji N, Ernst E. Why homoeopathy is pseudoscience. Synthese 2022; 200 (05) 394
• 4 Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366 9487 726-732
• 5 Homeopathy | NHMRC [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/homeopathy
• 6 Cukaci C, Freissmuth M, Mann C, Marti J, Sperl V. Against all odds-the persistent popularity of homeopathy. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2020; 132 9-10 232-242
• 7 Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: a critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS 2010; 31 (01) 47-50
• 8 Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 2019; 104: 333-339
• 9 Al-Jundi A, Sakka S. Protocol writing in clinical research. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10 (11) ZE10-ZE13
• 10 What Is Ethics in Research & Why Is It Important? - by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
• 11 Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg 2010; 53 (04) 278-281
• 12 Doody O, Bailey ME. Setting a research question, aim and objective. Nurse Res 2016; 23 (04) 19-23
• 13 Bjerke MB, Renger R. Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Eval Program Plann 2017; 61: 125-127
• 14 Röhrig B, du Prel JB, Wachtlin D, Blettner M. Types of study in medical research: part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009; 106 (15) 262-268
• 15 Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - descriptive studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019; 10 (01) 34-36
• 16 Sayre JW, Toklu HZ, Ye F, Mazza J, Yale S. Case reports, case series – from clinical practice to evidence-based medicine in graduate medical education. Cureus 2017; 9 (08) 1546
• 17 Das A, Singh I. How to write a case report?. Indian Dermatol Online J 2021; 12 (05) 683-686
• 18 Kooistra B, Dijkman B, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. How to design a good case series. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl (Suppl. 03) 21-26
• 19 Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R. Study designs: part 3 - analytical observational studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019; 10 (02) 91-94
• 20 Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: part 4 - interventional studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019; 10 (03) 137-139
• 21 Setia MS. Methodology series module 3: cross-sectional studies. Indian J Dermatol 2016; 61 (03) 261-264
• 22 Chapter 6. Ecological studies | The BMJ [Internet]. The BMJ | The BMJ: leading general medical journal. Research. Education. Comment. 2020 [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/epidemiology-uninitiated/6-ecological-studies
• 23 Lewallen S, Courtright P. Epidemiology in practice: case-control studies. Community Eye Health 1998; 11 (28) 57-58
• 24 Setia MS. Methodology series module 1: cohort studies. Indian J Dermatol 2016; 61 (01) 21-25
• 25 Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014; 24 (02) 199-210
• 26 Sachdeva A, Tiwari RC, Guha S. A novel approach to augment single-arm clinical studies with real-world data. J Biopharm Stat 2022; 32 (01) 141-157
• 27 Zabor EC, Kaizer AM, Hobbs BP. Randomized controlled trials. Chest 2020; 158 (1S) S79-S87
• 28 McCarthy CM. Randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (04) 1707-1712
• 29 Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials. Crossover trials. BMJ 1998; 316 7146 1719-1720
• 30 Cipriani A, Barbui C. What is a factorial trial?. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2013; 22 (03) 213-215
• 31 Harris AD, McGregor JC, Perencevich EN. et al. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (01) 16-23
• 32 Kim JH, Kim TK, In J, Lee DK, Lee S, Kang H. Assessment of risk of bias in quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials reported in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology between 2010 and 2016. Korean J Anesthesiol 2017; 70 (05) 511-519
• 33 Ulbrich-Zürni S, Teut M, Roll S, Mathie RT. The N-of-1 clinical trial: a timely research opportunity in homeopathy. Homeopathy 2018; 107 (01) 10-18
• 34 Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019; 4: 5
• 35 Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach | BMC Medical Research Methodology | Full Text [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
• 36 Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7 (02) e1000217
• 37 Pollock A, Berge E. How to do a systematic review. Int J Stroke 2018; 13 (02) 138-156
• 38 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
• 39 Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 2010; 14 (Suppl (Suppl. 01) 29-37
• 40 James J. Academic Guides: Evidence-Based Research: Levels of Evidence Pyramid [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 17]. Accessed April 1, 2023 at: https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/evidencepyramid
• 41 Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med 2016; 21 (04) 125-127
• 42 Süt N. Study designs in medicine. Balkan Med J 2014; 31 (04) 273-277