Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 24 March 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Systematic Reviews
- Vol. 6 (1), 1-28
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3
Abstract
A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised ‘reliable evidence’ if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. ‘Effect size’ was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy. Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as ‘high risk of bias’ and 23 as ‘uncertain risk of bias’; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was –0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44, –0.21), which was attenuated to –0.16 (95% CI –0.31, –0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: –0.18 (95% CI –0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence. The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.Keywords
Funding Information
- Manchester Homeopathic Clinic
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic reviewHomeopathy, 2013
- Efficacy of a Non-Hormonal Treatment, BRN-01, on Menopausal Hot FlashesDrugs in R&D, 2012
- Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance studyBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2012
- Homeopathic Plumbum metallicum for lead poisoning: a randomized clinical trialHomeopathy, 2011
- Traumeel S® for pain relief following hallux valgus surgery: a randomized controlled trialBMC Clinical Pharmacology, 2010
- Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009
- Randomized Controlled Trials of Individualized Homeopathy: A State-of-the-Art ReviewPublished by Mary Ann Liebert Inc ,1998
- Clinical trials of homoeopathy.BMJ, 1991
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986