Draft Version of a Checklist (Vers. 22/11/2016)
Michael Heinrich (UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK), Andreas Lardos (Zürich, CH); Marco Leonti (Univ. Cagliari, IT); Caroline Weckerle (Univ. Zürich, CH); Merlin Willcox (Univ. Oxford, UK) on behalf of the ConSEPTFS Working Group
One problem which has ‘haunted’ ethnopharmacology, is the lack of clearly defined standards on how to conduct ethnopharmacological field studies. This ambiguity regarding appropriate methods and how to analyse data has resulted in a lack of clear and well-communicated outcomes. In addition, there is no consensus on what constitute meaningful objectives and aims of such studies (or a hypothesis). One way to overcome this is a community-wide consensus document which defines minimal standards for conduction and reporting such field studies. While it cannot define specifics of a project, it will help all researchers to ascertain that the data are reported in a transparent way, that they are meaningful and can be applied in future research (and development).
Importantly, the focus is on ethnopharmacological field studies which address questions on the use of medicinal and (health) food plants, if it is the goal of the authors to contribute to a more evidence-based use of such resources in local or national health care systems. It is not intended for other studies in the ethnosciences, like cognitive or ethnolinguistic research.
With this document we have started a process which follows the basic idea of a CONSORT statement. This is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized clinical trials (www.consort-statement.org/). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare studies and the reports of their findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation.
Here we invite comments on the enclosed draft version.
Clearly, field studies are not a clinical interventions and there are many differences including a higher degree of variability in terms of objectives and aims with such field studies. And people come from a much more diverse range of disciplines, which, however, makes it even more important to define some minimal standards. We do this using the following process:
We look forward to your comments (by February 2017) coming from all relevant disciplines and all continents.
Michael Heinrich (UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK), Andreas Lardos (Zürich, CH); Marco Leonti (Univ. Cagliari, IT); Caroline Weckerle (Univ. Zürich, CH); Merlin Willcox (Univ. Oxford, UK) on behalf of the ConSEPTFS Working Group
One problem which has ‘haunted’ ethnopharmacology, is the lack of clearly defined standards on how to conduct ethnopharmacological field studies. This ambiguity regarding appropriate methods and how to analyse data has resulted in a lack of clear and well-communicated outcomes. In addition, there is no consensus on what constitute meaningful objectives and aims of such studies (or a hypothesis). One way to overcome this is a community-wide consensus document which defines minimal standards for conduction and reporting such field studies. While it cannot define specifics of a project, it will help all researchers to ascertain that the data are reported in a transparent way, that they are meaningful and can be applied in future research (and development).
Importantly, the focus is on ethnopharmacological field studies which address questions on the use of medicinal and (health) food plants, if it is the goal of the authors to contribute to a more evidence-based use of such resources in local or national health care systems. It is not intended for other studies in the ethnosciences, like cognitive or ethnolinguistic research.
With this document we have started a process which follows the basic idea of a CONSORT statement. This is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized clinical trials (www.consort-statement.org/). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare studies and the reports of their findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation.
Here we invite comments on the enclosed draft version.
Clearly, field studies are not a clinical interventions and there are many differences including a higher degree of variability in terms of objectives and aims with such field studies. And people come from a much more diverse range of disciplines, which, however, makes it even more important to define some minimal standards. We do this using the following process:
- We ask you to provide feedback on the enclosed draft. This has to be submitted until the end of February of 2017.
-
Then it will be discussed at user group meetings at the next International Society for Ethnopharmacology meeting (Beirut April 2017), the World Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Berlin, the Society for Ethnopharmacology meeting in Surat, Gujarat, India and possibly some other conferences.
- The final version will then be made freely available via one of the leading journals (open access).
We look forward to your comments (by February 2017) coming from all relevant disciplines and all continents.
