Talk:Shang reviews of homeopathy

Impact of study

The study has been highly cited; by 2011, it had received more than 200 citations recorded in the ISI Web of Knowledge, but mostly in articles specifically discussing homeopathy and mostly in the CAM literature. The generalised implications have been explicitly picked up by a few, e.g. Finckh A, Tramer MR (2010)Osteoarthritis. (Small studies overestimate the benefit of therapies for OA Nature Rev Rheumatol 6:617-618 a meta-epidemiological study has revealed that the inclusion of small studies in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis interventions could lead to an overestimation of the benefit of these interventions. Does this mean meta-analyses should be restricted to trials with large sample sizes?)

• Begg CB (1985) A measure to aid in the interpretation of published clinical trials Stat Med 4:1-9 PMID 3992068

• Sehon S, Stanley D (2010) Evidence and simplicity: why we should reject homeopathy J eval clin Pract 16:276-281

• Moreno SG et al. (2009) Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications

BMJ 339

• Pandolfi M (2010) Homeopathy: ex nihilo fit nihil. Eur J Intern Med 21:147-8 PMID 20493411

this article should be retitled

This article should be retitled to conform with normal CZ conventions about titling and the insertion of the title into the lede sentence in boldface. I have just done a Google for "Shang review" and Shang reviews" and, aside for a couple of hits for a NYC restaurant called Shang, there is nothing. Perhaps Lancet reviews of homeopathy (2005) or some such. Hayford Peirce 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of our contributors here also contribute to Rationalwiki to vent their feelings

Are they aware that RW calls this article "pseudo-science"? It's listed in the table of pseudo-science articles at: http://mail.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Citizendium Hayford Peirce 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)