Echinacea von BPH

Benigne Prostatahyperplasie (BPH) Behandlung mit PLASMA Reportage

Kann ich ein Bad mit BPH nehmen

Back to Lifestyle and exercise. What was not widely reported in the news was that the study also reported finding no significant difference between the groups when they looked at the number of colds each group caught. So, the difference seems to have been related to how long a cold lasted, rather than the frequency of cold. This randomised control trial was well designed and had a Echinacea von BPH sample Echinacea von BPH participantshowever, there are a number of oddities in the reporting of the study findings that cast a shadow of doubt over the results, such as:.

Many of these basic problems would usually be picked up by the peer review process or journal editors. The lack Echinacea von BPH such quality standards may leave the reporters and editors a little red-faced. This news story should stand as a warning to journalists of Echinacea von BPH dangers of taking research at face value without Echinacea von BPH any critical faculties to bear.

In conclusion, based on this study alone, it is not clear whether taking Echinacea prevents cold episodes, though it does suggest it may reduce their duration. Further research is needed to confirm or refute these findings and also to see if they also apply to people with long-term health conditions such as asthma. The study was published in the open access, Echinacea von BPH medical journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

No funding source was reported in Echinacea von BPH published research article, but three of the five authors declared no conflict of interest. The lack of funding information and incomplete declaration of conflicts of interest by all the study authors is unusual.

The standard practice in all good Echinacea von BPH or medical journals is to clearly state all funding sources and conflicts of interest, or how the funder was involved Echinacea von BPH the research design or write-up.

This article falls short of this standard, and this should arouse a healthy scepticism in readers. Interestingly, both the Mail and the Telegraph reported that the study was part funded by A. Vogel, a Swiss manufacturer of herbal remedies, including Echinacea products such as Echinacea von BPH toothpaste. This could not be confirmed from the research article alone, although the Echinacea used in the research was provided by this company, and the study is highlighted on the A.

This finding is the result of combining the number of Echinacea von BPH and their duration into one variable. The media chose not to report the finding that the number of colds alone was not significantly different between the two groups, which is also informative. Finally, the media did not highlight the numerous and significant limitations of the study discussed below.

The authors report that the common cold is the most prevalent disease in Western civilisation, with substantial related healthcare costs, so a medication to reduce this disease burden would be welcomed. A total of healthy subjects were randomly assigned to receive an extract of Echinacea purpurea a flowering plant found in North America, supposed to have immune-boosting propertiesor a placebo for a period of four months.

Vogel Bioforce. The placebo drops were similar in shape, colour, consistency, odour and flavour. Participants took three doses of 0. This corresponded to 2,mg of Echinacea extract per day.

During a cold cold episodeparticipants were instructed to increase the dose to five doses of Echinacea von BPH. Participants were also asked to record and rate cold-related issues and the use of any medications in a diary.

When participants got a cold they were asked to collect nasal secretions using home kits which were then screened for viruses. This lack of clarity in reporting makes it harder for the reader to see exactly what statistical comparisons have been tested, and which were significant. Combining the results in this manner falls far from the standards of transparency you would expect to see from a well-conducted randomised controlled trial.

Unfortunately, due to the way the findings were reported and the lack of a clear results table the exact comparison and findings of this study were difficult to pin down. There were no significant differences in the number of adverse events reported in the Echinacea group compared to the placebo group.

As mentioned, very little information was given on adverse events, in both the Echinacea and placebo group. There were also no significant differences between the two groups on key blood and biochemical measures. The authors report that the placebo group had cold episodes, lasting episode days, compared to the Echinacea group which had a total of episodes, lasting episode days.

Not reporting confidence intervals for results is unusual for a randomised controlled trial. There were 58 cold episodes treated with pain medication in the Echinacea group compared to 88 in the placebo group. The authors then did a subgroup analysis on those that had followed the study medication protocol for the entire four months of the treatment 84 people who took all doses in the Echinacea group; the number in the placebo group not reported.

Those who had deviated in any way from the medication, or who had dropped out, were excluded. The results of a comparison of cold episodes, the other key variable, were not reported. Combining outcomes in this way is Echinacea von BPH potentially useful way of reporting outcomes.

This study appeared to be well designed, and may have collected important results. However, the way in which it was written up meant that it Echinacea von BPH difficult to assess the findings. These basic problems should really be picked up by Echinacea von BPH peer review process or journal editors.

The following issues with the study's reporting muddied the water of interpreting these findings Echinacea von BPH and clearly:. The lack of funding information and incomplete declaration of conflicts of interest by all the study authors is highly unusual.

The standard practice in all good science or medical journals is to clearly state all funding sources and conflicts of interest. This article falls short of this standard. While it is not unusual for commercial companies to fund, or provide drugs, for research purposes which is not in itself a Echinacea von BPH thingit is unusual when this is not declared in the publication. Unconventionally, this study did not contain a results table showing which statistical comparisons were made, for example, the number of colds in the placebo group versus the control group and whether this was statistically significant.

Describing only a few significant results in the results section makes it unclear whether other comparisons were performed and whether they were left out because they turned out to be non-significant. The discussion section of the article makes suggestions of non-significant findings that were not mentioned in the results section.

The study also failed to list any adverse effects or side effects in a meaningful way. These can demonstrate, for example, if risk reductions only just reached significance, or, if the confidence intervals were wide, it would mean we could have less confidence in the accuracy of the estimated effect of Echinacea. They also mention in the discussion only that the number of cold episodes alone was not statistically significant between the Echinacea and placebo group.

Only raising important non-significant findings in the discussion without first mentioning them in the results section is a further Echinacea von BPH practice.

It also raises questions over whether the authors have reported only significant findings in the results section, which would give a biased view of their findings. The authors highlight that the Echinacea group had a Echinacea von BPH susceptibility to colds than those in the placebo group at the start of the study measured by assessing the number of colds in the past.

Echinacea von BPH also report that participants in the Echinacea group reported less frequent use of common pain medications. They point out that adjusting for these covariates would most likely have resulted in an even higher beneficial effect of Echinacea.

The researchers employed the double-blind randomised control trial method as this is rightly seen as the gold standard in judging whether a treatment is both effective and safe. Echinacea von BPH, they left out many of details you would expect to Echinacea von BPH in the reporting of a well-conducted randomised control trial Echinacea von BPH details that would ultimately add credibility to the results.

It could well be the case that Echinacea may have a role in the prevention or treatment of colds. Largest ever clinical study into echinacea finds herbal remedy can protect against colds. Echinacea 'can prevent colds'. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Published online September 16 Echinacea cold study claims analysed Wednesday 10 October This randomised control trial was well designed and had a good sample size participantshowever, there are a number of oddities in the reporting of the study findings that cast a shadow of doubt over the results, such as: no declaration of funding and only partial disclosure of conflict of interests no results table limited reporting of unpleasant side effects no estimates of error around the results reported selective reporting of results the applicability of the results to the general population Many of these basic problems would usually be picked up by the peer review process or journal editors.

Where did the story come from? What kind of research was this? What did the research involve? The statistical analysis employed by the researchers was basic and potentially Echinacea von BPH. No summary table of the comparisons that the researchers tested was provided in the write-up. What were the basic results? Safety There were no significant Echinacea von BPH in the number of adverse events reported in the Echinacea group compared to the placebo group.

Effectiveness The authors report that the placebo group had cold episodes, lasting episode days, compared to the Echinacea group which had a total of episodes, lasting episode days.

How did the researchers interpret the results? The following issues with the study's reporting muddied the water of interpreting these findings fully and clearly: Echinacea von BPH declaration of funding and only partial disclosure of conflict of interest The Echinacea von BPH of funding information and incomplete declaration of conflicts of interest by all the study authors is highly unusual.

No Echinacea von BPH table Unconventionally, this study did not contain a results table showing which statistical comparisons were made, for example, the number of colds in the placebo group versus the control group and whether this was statistically significant. Statistical analysis The authors highlight that the Echinacea group had a higher susceptibility to colds than those in the placebo group at the start of the study measured by assessing the number of colds in the past.