##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Technical comment

Vol. 143 No. 0304 (2013)

Familiarity, objectivity – and misconduct

  • Klaus von Ammon
  • Gudrum Bornhöft
  • Stefanie Maxion-Bergemann
  • Marco Righetti
  • Stephan Baumgartner
  • André Thurneysen
  • Ursula Wolf
  • Peter F. Matthiessen
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143:w13720
Published
13.01.2013

References

  1. Shaw DM. The Swiss Report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13594 http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13594/
  2. PEK Review Board.Summary Consensus Statement of the PEK Review Board regarding the PEK process and the PEK products,27th September 2005 [in both, German and English].http://www.bag.admin.ch/kv/forschung/d/2005consensus_statement_review_board_d.pdf.
  3. Final Report PEK [PEK Schlussbericht 24.4.2005; in German, summary in English].http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/00305.02362/index.html
  4. Information of Swiss Federal Office of Internal Affairs, 12.01.2011 [Mitteilung des Eidgenössischen Department des Innern EDI; in German]. http://www.edi.admin.ch/dokumentation/00331/01824/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=37173
  5. Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P (eds.). Homeopathy in healthcare – effectiveness, appropriateness, safety and cost-effectiveness [Homöopathie in der Krankenversorgung – Wirksamkeit, Nutzen, Sicherheit und Wirtschaftlichkeit. VAS, Frankfurt/Main 2006; in German].
  6. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF (2006). Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin 1 3 [Suppl 2]:19–29
  7. Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P (eds.). Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs. Springer, 2011.
  8. Charles River Associates. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment. May 2011 (URL: http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/1661/hta_final_comparison_report_13_may_2011_stc1.pdf).
  9. Draborg E, et al. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2005;21(1):89–95.
  10. Bingefors K, Pashos CL, Smith MD, Berger ML. Health care cost, quality, and outcomes. ISPOR Book of terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2003. Cited from: Sean D. Sullivan, BSPharm, John Watkins, Brian Sweet, Scott D. Ramsey. Health Technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States, 2009, value in Health Vol 12, Suppl. 2 URL:http://www.ispor.org/htaspecialissue/Sullivan.pdf
  11. Federal Office of Social Insurance: Manual for standardisation of medical and economic assessment of medical goods and services, 1996 [Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung BSV. Handbuch zur Standardisierung der medizinischen und wirtschaftlichen Bewertung medizinischer Leistungen. 3. Entwurf, Bern, 1996; in German].
  12. Scottish Medicines Consortium. New Product Assessment Form, revised March 2012 (URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/Latest_News/News_Articles/New_Product_Assessment_Form_Guidance_For_Manufacturers
  13. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Br Med J. 1995;311:485.
  14. Higgins Julian PT, Sally Green. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions March 2011 (URL: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/)
  15. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare: General methods, Version 4.0, 2011 [Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Allgemeine Methoden, Version 4.0, 2011; in both, German and English]. URL: https://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG_Methoden_Version_4_0.pdf
  16. Science and Technology Committee of the UK Parliament. Report on homeopathy. Evidence Check Report on Homeopathy considered flawed by MPs and dismissed by Government. URL: http://www.homeopathyevidencecheck.org/index.html