Änderungen

==Zurückgezogene Studie zur Homöopathie==

==Zurückgezogene Studie zur Homöopathie==

Eine von Harald Walach mitverfasste Studie zur Wirksamkeit der [[Homöopathie]] bei ADHS aus dem Jahr 2022<ref>Gaertner K, Teut M, Walach H. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Is homeopathy effective for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder? A meta-analysis. Pediatr Res. 14. Juni 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41390-022-02127-3</ref> musste am 20. September 2023 zurückgezogen werden.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3#additional-information</ref><ref>https://blog.gwup.net/2023/10/19/retracted-artikel-ueber-homoeopathie-bei-adhs-von-walach-und-co-zurueckgezogen/</ref><ref>https://netzwerk-homoeopathie.info/adhs-und-homoeopathie-ein-neuer-review-was-ist-dran</ref><ref>https://edzardernst.com/2022/06/walachs-new-meta-analysis-of-homeopathy-revisited/</ref> In einer Bewertung heisst es dazu:

Eine von Harald Walach (genannt: Change Health Science Institute, Berlin)  mitverfasste Studie zur Wirksamkeit der [[Homöopathie]] bei ADHS aus dem Jahr 2022<ref>Gaertner K, Teut M, Walach H. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Is homeopathy effective for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder? A meta-analysis. Pediatr Res. 14. Juni 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41390-022-02127-3</ref> musste am 20. September 2023 zurückgezogen werden.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3#additional-information</ref><ref>https://blog.gwup.net/2023/10/19/retracted-artikel-ueber-homoeopathie-bei-adhs-von-walach-und-co-zurueckgezogen/</ref><ref>https://netzwerk-homoeopathie.info/adhs-und-homoeopathie-ein-neuer-review-was-ist-dran</ref><ref>https://edzardernst.com/2022/06/walachs-new-meta-analysis-of-homeopathy-revisited/</ref> In einer Bewertung heisst es dazu:

:''The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article due to concerns regarding the analysis of the articles included in the meta-analysis. Specifically: (1) The authors’ overall allocation of Risk of Bias (ROB) was not in line with Cochrane guidance. (2) Frei et al 2005 has no bias stated in the authors’ raw data, but the study only included “responders” (children were treated with homeopathy in the screening phase, and only those who showed improvement were selected for the trial). This should be considered “other bias”. (3) The results of Jacobs et al. appear to be misrepresented, as their study demonstrated higher improvement in the main outcome in the control group compared with the homeopathy group (CGI-P T-score 9.1 vs. 4.1), while the current study reported these results to be in favour of homeopathy. (4) Oberai et al. [1] reported effect sizes for their three main outcomes of 0.22, 0.59 and 0.54 (Revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale [CPRS-R], Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale [CGISS], Clinical Global Impression- Improvement Scale [CGIIS]) respectively however in this article 1.436 was given as the average effect size. The authors do not indicate if they recalculated effect sizes from the data in the study. Based on the above deficiencies following thorough review, the Editor-in-Chief has substantial concerns regarding the validity of the results presented in this article."''

:''The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article due to concerns regarding the analysis of the articles included in the meta-analysis. Specifically: (1) The authors’ overall allocation of Risk of Bias (ROB) was not in line with Cochrane guidance. (2) Frei et al 2005 has no bias stated in the authors’ raw data, but the study only included “responders” (children were treated with homeopathy in the screening phase, and only those who showed improvement were selected for the trial). This should be considered “other bias”. (3) The results of Jacobs et al. appear to be misrepresented, as their study demonstrated higher improvement in the main outcome in the control group compared with the homeopathy group (CGI-P T-score 9.1 vs. 4.1), while the current study reported these results to be in favour of homeopathy. (4) Oberai et al. [1] reported effect sizes for their three main outcomes of 0.22, 0.59 and 0.54 (Revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale [CPRS-R], Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale [CGISS], Clinical Global Impression- Improvement Scale [CGIIS]) respectively however in this article 1.436 was given as the average effect size. The authors do not indicate if they recalculated effect sizes from the data in the study. Based on the above deficiencies following thorough review, the Editor-in-Chief has substantial concerns regarding the validity of the results presented in this article."''