This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
en:studie [2013/01/21 22:07] pistus animals |
en:studie [2013/02/25 20:59] pistus |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Bornhöft G. et al. "Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice -- summarized health technology assessment." Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. -- [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077|http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077]] | Bornhöft G. et al. "Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice -- summarized health technology assessment." Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. -- [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077|http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | //__comments on Bornhöft study:__// | ||
+ | | ||
+ | //Shaw DM. The Swiss report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 May 31;142:w13594. [[http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13594/]] // | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Reply to Shaw DM: von Ammon K, Bornhöft G, Maxion-Bergemann S, Righetti M, Baumgartner S,Thurneysen A, Wolf U, Matthiessen PF. Familiarity, objectivity - and misconduct: Counterstatement to Shaw DM. The Swiss Report on homoeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13594. [[http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2013-13720/]] // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Meta-analysis of financial costs** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Viksveen P, Dymitr Z, Simoens S. Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review. Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Feb 10.([[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397477]]) | ||
+ | |||
==== Effects of highly-diluted substances on animals ==== | ==== Effects of highly-diluted substances on animals ==== |