Statistical analysis of six repertory rubrics after prospective assessment applying Bayes' theorem
Verantwortlicher Herausgeber dieser Rubrik:
Received30. Mai 2008
revised22. Oktober 2008
accepted18. November 2008
20. Dezember 2017 (online)
Background: After prospective assessment of six homeopathic symptoms we validated some rubrics of the homeopathic repertory using Bayesian theory. In this paper we introduce statistical arguments for introducing or discarding entries from the repertory.
Methods: 4094 patients entered the prospective study and 4072 prescriptions were evaluated. After translating typeface into Likelihood Ratios (LRs), Confidence Intervals and the probability of existing repertory entries compared to our findings were calculated.
Outcome: Our assessment yielded 121 relevant results to validate existing repertory entries. Five symptoms could be compared with Kent's original repertory; they have about the same prevalence (range 3.9–6.5%) in the whole population, but the size of the corresponding repertory rubrics varies from 3 to 103 entries. LR assessment reduced the larger rubrics and supplemented the smaller ones. Our results do not correspond with 56% of the existing repertory entries regarding five symptom-rubrics. This result cannot be generalised for the whole repertory.
- 1 Stolper C.F., Rutten A.L.B., Lugten R.F.G. Barthels RJWMM. Improving homeopathic prescribing by applying epidemiological techniques: the role of likelihood ratio. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 230-238.
- 2 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Is assessment of likelihood ratio of homeopathic symptoms possible? A pilot study. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 213-216.
- 3 Bayes T. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans R Soc London 1763; 53: 370-418.
- 4 Gill C.J., Sabin L., Schmid C.H. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 2005; 330: 1080-1083.
- 5 Woodworth G.G. Biostatistics: a Bayesian introduction. Wiley; 2004.
- 6 Altman D.G., Machin D., Bryant T.N., Gardner M.J. Statistics with confidence. 2000. BMJ Books; ISBN: 0-7279-1375-1
- 7 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. New repertory, new considerations. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 16-21.
- 8 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. A Bayesian perspective on the reliability of homeopathic repertories. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 88-93.
- 9 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. ‘Cure’ as the gold standard for likelihood ratio assessment: theoretical considerations. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 78-83.
- 10 Kent J.T. Repertory of the homoeopathic materia medica. Enriched 6th American edn. New Delhi: World Homoeopathic Links; 1982.
- 11 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Repertory and the symptom loquacity: some results from a pilot-study. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 190-192.
- 12 Rutten A.L.B., Stolper C.F., Lugten R.F., Barthels R.J. Assessing likelihood ratio of clinical symptoms: handling vagueness. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 182-186.
- 13 Rutten Lex, Stolper Erik, Lugten Roland, Barthels Rob. Onderzoek likelihood ratio: stand van zaken januari 2005. SSC 2005; 35 (02) 17-22.
- 14 Rutten Lex, Stolper Erik, Lugten Roland, Barthels Rob. Onderzoek likelihood ratio: april 2005. SSC 2005; 35 (02) 23-24.