| Title |
Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-49 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert T Mathie, Helmut Roniger, Michel Van Wassenhoven, Joyce Frye, Jennifer Jacobs, Menachem Oberbaum, Marie-France Bordet, Chaturbhuja Nayak, Gilles Chaufferin, John A Ives, Flávio Dantas, Peter Fisher |
| Abstract |
A method for assessing the model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy is needed. To date, only conventional standards for assessing intrinsic bias (internal validity) of trials have been invoked, with little recognition of the special characteristics of homeopathy. We aimed to identify relevant judgmental domains to use in assessing the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). We define MVHT as the extent to which a homeopathic intervention and the main measure of its outcome, as implemented in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reflect 'state-of-the-art' homeopathic practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| Spain | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 26% |
| Researcher | 11 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 53% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,028,217
of 24,366,830 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#464
of 2,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,808
of 165,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,366,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 165,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.