HTA Homeopathy: Methods and Material

  • Stefanie Maxion-Bergemann
  • Gudrun Bornhöft
  • Ursula Wolf

Abstract

The compilation of this HTA followed predefined steps to ensure the quality of process and results. The procedure was based on the commission documents provided and the generally accepted international guidelines for the compilation of HTA reports, as well as on the special requirements set by the ‘Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme’ (PEK) in Switzerland (ECHTA 2001, BSV 2001, DIMDI 2004, INHTA 2001, Heusser 2001).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung der Schweiz (ed. now: Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG) (1996 and 2002) Handbuch zur Standardisierung der medizinischen und wirtschaftlichen Bewertung medizinischer Leistungen. BernGoogle Scholar
  2. Busse R, Orvain J, Drummond M, Gurtner F, Jørgensen T, Jovell A, Malone J, Perleth M, Wild C (2001) Best practice in undertaking and reporting HTA. ECHTA Working Group 4 Final Report July 2001. available at: http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ebene5/WG4_FinalReport_010719.pdf
  3. Chalmers TC, Smith H jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A (1981) A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 2:31–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. The Cochrane Collaboration (2001) Cochrane Reviewers Handbook. Handbook 4.1.4.Google Scholar
  5. Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment (DAHTA) beim Deutschen Institut für medizinische Information und Dokumentation (DIMDI) (2004) HTA: Vorgehensweise, Konzept und Inhalt. Available at: http://wwwdimdide/de/hta/hta_dimdi/Konzepthtml.
  6. Glanville J, Sowden A. Identification of the need for a review. In: Khan K, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden A, Kleijnen J (eds) (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd edn), YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Heusser P (1999) Probleme von Studiendesigns mit Randomisation, Verblindung und Placebogabe. Forschende Komplementärmedizin 6:89–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heusser P (2001) Criteria for assessing benefit with complementary medical methods. [in German]. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde 8:14–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessments (INAHTA) (2001) A Checklist for Health Technology Assessment Reports. http://www.dimdi.de/de/hta/hta_dimdi/inahtachecklist.pdf
  10. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuy HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Linde K, Hondras M, Vickers A, ter Riet G, Melchart D (2001) Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy. BMC Complement Alternat Med 1:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Kleijnen J et al. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report No 4.CRD Publications. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
  13. Wein C (2002) Qualitätsaspekte klinischer Studien zur Homöopathie. KVC, EssenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Maxion-Bergemann
    • 1
  • Gudrun Bornhöft
    • 2
  • Ursula Wolf
    • 3
  1. 1.LörrachGermany and Switzerland
  2. 2.Goslar
  3. 3.Institute for Complementary Medicine KIKOMUniversity of Bern Imhoof-Pavillon, InselspitalBern

Personalised recommendations