Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research—Description of the Checklist Development

The objective of this study was to develop a criteria catalogue serving as a guideline for authors to improve quality of reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy. A Delphi Process was initiated including three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last 5 years were involved. A checklist for authors provide a catalogue with 23 criteria. The “Introduction” should focus on underlying hypotheses, the homeopathic principle investigated and state if experiments are exploratory or confirmatory. “Materials and methods” should comprise information on object of investigation, experimental setup, parameters, intervention and statistical methods. A more detailed description on the homeopathic substances, for example, manufacture, dilution method, starting point of dilution is required. A further result of the Delphi process is to raise scientists' awareness of reporting blinding, allocation, replication, quality control and system performance controls. The part “Results” should provide the exact number of treated units per setting which were included in each analysis and state missing samples and drop outs. Results presented in tables and figures are as important as appropriate measures of effect size, uncertainty and probability. “Discussion” in a report should depict more than a general interpretation of results in the context of current evidence but also limitations and an appraisal of aptitude for the chosen experimental model. Authors of homeopathic basic research publications are encouraged to apply our checklist when preparing their manuscripts. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

Human and feline invasive cervical resorptions: the missing link?--Presentation of four cases

This report describes 4 patients presenting with multiple teeth affected by invasive cervical resorption (ICR). The cases came to our attention between 2006 and 2008; previously, no cases of multiple ICR (mICR) had been reported in Switzerland. Characteristics common to all 4 cases included progression of disease over time, similar clinical and radiographic appearance of lesions, and obscure etiology. The histologically assessed teeth showed a similar pattern of tooth destruction, with resorptive lesions being confined to the cervical region. Howship's lacunae and multinucleated, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive odontoclasts were detected. None of the teeth presented with internal resorption. The positive pulp sensitivity corresponded to the histologic findings, indicating that the pulp tissue resisted degradation even in advanced stages of resorptive lesions. Although mICR is rare in humans, a similar disease known as feline odontoclastic resorptive lesions (FORL) is common in domestic, captive, and wild cats. The etiology of FORL, like that of mICR, remains largely unknown. Because FORL has been associated with feline viruses, we asked our mICR patients whether they had had contact with cats, and interestingly, all patients reported having had direct (2 cases) or indirect (2 cases) contact. In addition, blood samples were taken from all patients for neutralization testing of feline herpes virus type 1 (FeHV-1). Indeed, the sera obtained were able to neutralize (2 cases) or partly inhibit (2 cases) replication of FeHV-1, indicating transmission of feline viruses to humans. Future studies on mICR (and FORL) should evaluate the possible role of a (feline) virus as an etiologic (co-)factor in this disease.