Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Endler, Peter Christian
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Bellavite, Paolo, Bonamin, Leoni [UNESP], Jaeger, Tim, Mazon, Sintia
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/158640
Resumo: Introduction: This paper focuses exclusively on experimental models with ultra high dilutions (i.e. beyond 10(-23)) that have been submitted to replication scrutiny. It updates previous surveys, considers suggestions made by the research community and compares the state of replication in 1994 with that in 2015. Methods: Following literature research, biochemical, immunological, botanical, cell biological and zoological studies on ultra high dilutions (potencies) were included. Reports were grouped into initial studies, laboratory-internal, multicentre and external replications. Repetition could yield either comparable, or zero, or opposite results. The null-hypothesis was that test and control groups would not be distinguishable (zero effect). Results: A total of 126 studies were found. From these, 28 were initial studies. When all 98 replicative studies were considered, 70.4% (i.e. 69) reported a result comparable to that of the initial study, 20.4% (20) zero effect and 9.2% (9) an opposite result. Both for the studies until 1994 and the studies 1995-2015 the null-hypothesis (dominance of zero results) should be rejected. Furthermore, the odds of finding a comparable result are generally higher than of finding an opposite result. Although this is true for all three types of replication studies, the fraction of comparable studies diminishes from laboratory-internal (total 82.9%) to multicentre (total 75%) to external (total 48.3%), while the fraction of opposite results was 4.9%, 10.7% and 13.8%. Furthermore, it became obvious that the probability of an external replication producing comparable results is bigger for models that had already been further scrutinized by the initial researchers. Conclusions: We found 28 experimental models which underwent replication. In total, 24 models were replicated with comparable results, 12 models with zero effect, and 6 models with opposite results. Five models were externally reproduced with comparable results. We encourage further replications of studies in order to learn more about the model systems used.
id UNSP_3085d492b356337c0be806f11e377e4e
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/158640
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric studyReviewBasic researchHomeopathyUltra high dilutionReplicationIntroduction: This paper focuses exclusively on experimental models with ultra high dilutions (i.e. beyond 10(-23)) that have been submitted to replication scrutiny. It updates previous surveys, considers suggestions made by the research community and compares the state of replication in 1994 with that in 2015. Methods: Following literature research, biochemical, immunological, botanical, cell biological and zoological studies on ultra high dilutions (potencies) were included. Reports were grouped into initial studies, laboratory-internal, multicentre and external replications. Repetition could yield either comparable, or zero, or opposite results. The null-hypothesis was that test and control groups would not be distinguishable (zero effect). Results: A total of 126 studies were found. From these, 28 were initial studies. When all 98 replicative studies were considered, 70.4% (i.e. 69) reported a result comparable to that of the initial study, 20.4% (20) zero effect and 9.2% (9) an opposite result. Both for the studies until 1994 and the studies 1995-2015 the null-hypothesis (dominance of zero results) should be rejected. Furthermore, the odds of finding a comparable result are generally higher than of finding an opposite result. Although this is true for all three types of replication studies, the fraction of comparable studies diminishes from laboratory-internal (total 82.9%) to multicentre (total 75%) to external (total 48.3%), while the fraction of opposite results was 4.9%, 10.7% and 13.8%. Furthermore, it became obvious that the probability of an external replication producing comparable results is bigger for models that had already been further scrutinized by the initial researchers. Conclusions: We found 28 experimental models which underwent replication. In total, 24 models were replicated with comparable results, 12 models with zero effect, and 6 models with opposite results. Five models were externally reproduced with comparable results. We encourage further replications of studies in order to learn more about the model systems used.Interuniv Coll Hlth & Dev Graz Castle Seggau, A-8042 Graz, AustriaUniv Verona, I-37100 Verona, ItalyUniv Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniv Witten Herdecke, Witten, GermanyUniv Bern, Inst Complementary Med IKOM, CH-3012 Bern, SwitzerlandUniv Freiburg, Freiburg, GermanyUniv Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, BrazilElsevier B.V.Interuniv Coll Hlth & Dev Graz Castle SeggauUniv VeronaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Univ Witten HerdeckeUniv BernUniv FreiburgEndler, Peter ChristianBellavite, PaoloBonamin, Leoni [UNESP]Jaeger, TimMazon, Sintia2018-11-26T15:28:26Z2018-11-26T15:28:26Z2015-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article234-245application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003Homeopathy. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 104, n. 4, p. 234-245, 2015.1475-4916http://hdl.handle.net/11449/15864010.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003WOS:000367215300004WOS000367215300004.pdfWeb of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengHomeopathy0,678info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-10-17T06:09:41Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/158640Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T15:12:07.748772Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
title Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
spellingShingle Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
Endler, Peter Christian
Review
Basic research
Homeopathy
Ultra high dilution
Replication
title_short Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
title_full Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
title_fullStr Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
title_full_unstemmed Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
title_sort Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015-update on a bibliometric study
author Endler, Peter Christian
author_facet Endler, Peter Christian
Bellavite, Paolo
Bonamin, Leoni [UNESP]
Jaeger, Tim
Mazon, Sintia
author_role author
author2 Bellavite, Paolo
Bonamin, Leoni [UNESP]
Jaeger, Tim
Mazon, Sintia
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Interuniv Coll Hlth & Dev Graz Castle Seggau
Univ Verona
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Univ Witten Herdecke
Univ Bern
Univ Freiburg
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Endler, Peter Christian
Bellavite, Paolo
Bonamin, Leoni [UNESP]
Jaeger, Tim
Mazon, Sintia
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Review
Basic research
Homeopathy
Ultra high dilution
Replication
topic Review
Basic research
Homeopathy
Ultra high dilution
Replication
description Introduction: This paper focuses exclusively on experimental models with ultra high dilutions (i.e. beyond 10(-23)) that have been submitted to replication scrutiny. It updates previous surveys, considers suggestions made by the research community and compares the state of replication in 1994 with that in 2015. Methods: Following literature research, biochemical, immunological, botanical, cell biological and zoological studies on ultra high dilutions (potencies) were included. Reports were grouped into initial studies, laboratory-internal, multicentre and external replications. Repetition could yield either comparable, or zero, or opposite results. The null-hypothesis was that test and control groups would not be distinguishable (zero effect). Results: A total of 126 studies were found. From these, 28 were initial studies. When all 98 replicative studies were considered, 70.4% (i.e. 69) reported a result comparable to that of the initial study, 20.4% (20) zero effect and 9.2% (9) an opposite result. Both for the studies until 1994 and the studies 1995-2015 the null-hypothesis (dominance of zero results) should be rejected. Furthermore, the odds of finding a comparable result are generally higher than of finding an opposite result. Although this is true for all three types of replication studies, the fraction of comparable studies diminishes from laboratory-internal (total 82.9%) to multicentre (total 75%) to external (total 48.3%), while the fraction of opposite results was 4.9%, 10.7% and 13.8%. Furthermore, it became obvious that the probability of an external replication producing comparable results is bigger for models that had already been further scrutinized by the initial researchers. Conclusions: We found 28 experimental models which underwent replication. In total, 24 models were replicated with comparable results, 12 models with zero effect, and 6 models with opposite results. Five models were externally reproduced with comparable results. We encourage further replications of studies in order to learn more about the model systems used.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-10-01
2018-11-26T15:28:26Z
2018-11-26T15:28:26Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003
Homeopathy. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 104, n. 4, p. 234-245, 2015.
1475-4916
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/158640
10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003
WOS:000367215300004
WOS000367215300004.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/158640
identifier_str_mv Homeopathy. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 104, n. 4, p. 234-245, 2015.
1475-4916
10.1016/j.homp.2015.10.003
WOS:000367215300004
WOS000367215300004.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Homeopathy
0,678
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 234-245
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Web of Science
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128479023071232