Table 2.

Independent systematic reviews of homeopathy.

Reference	Included trials (number)	Total patient number	Assessment of methodological quality	Meta-analysis	Overall conclusion*	Comment
Barnes (1997) [10]	All placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy for postoperative ileus (n = 6)	776	Yes	Weighted mean difference to time until first sign of peristalsis was in favour of homeopathy (−7.4 h)	Homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of postoperative ileus, however, several caveats preclude a definitive judgement	The methodologically best trial was convincingly negative
Ernst (1998) [11]	All placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy for delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (n = 8)	311	Yes	No meta analysis possible, all randomized trials were negative	The evidence does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies are more efficacious than placebo for DOMS	DOMS was chosen because it was submitted to clinical trials more often than any other condition
Ernst (1998) [12]	All placebo-controlled trials of homeopathic arnica (n = 8)	338	Yes	No meta-analysis possible, no clear trend in favour of homeopathy	The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials	This analysis set out to test the remedy that had been most frequently submitted to clinical trials, i.e. arnica (see also Lüdtke below)
Ernst (1999) [13]	All RCTs of homeopathy for migraine prophylaxis (n = 4)	284	Yes	No meta-analysis possible; 3 of 4 trials were negative (including the methodologically best)	The trial data . . . do not suggest that homeopathy is effective in the prophylaxis of migraine or headache beyond a placebo effect	This analysis tested the efficacy for a condition that homeopaths often treat in clinical practice
Ernst (1999) [14]	All controlled clinical trials of ‘classical’° homeopathy vsconventional treatments (n = 6)	605	No	No meta-analysis possible	No clear trend in favour of homeopathy	Nonrandomized studies were also included
Lüdtke (1999) [15]	All controlled clinical trials of homeopathic arnica (n = 37)	n.d.p.	Yes	No meta-analysis possible	No clear evidence in favour of homeopathic arnica was found	Paper probably not peer-reviewed, trials that used arnica in combination with other remedies and those which were not placebo controlled were also included
Cucherat (2000) [16]	All RCTs of homeopathy vs placebo with clinical or surrogate endpoints (n = 16)	2617	Yes	Combined 2-tailed P value was highly significant (P = 0.000056) in favour of homeopathy	There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo	Strength of evidence was estimated to be low by the authors
Vickers (2000) [17]	All RCTs of homeopathic oscillococcinum vs placebo for influenza (n = 7)	3459	Yes	RR = 0.64 for influenza prevention RR = 0, 28 for influenza treatment	Treatment reduced length of illness significantly by 0.28 days	The authors stated that ‘the data are not strong enough to make a general recommendation’
Linde (2000)	All RCTs of homeopathy vs placebo for chronic asthma (n = 3)	154	Yes	No meta-analysis possible	No clear trend in favour of homeopathy	Not enough evidence for reliable assessment
Jonas (2000) [19]	All controlled clinical trials of homeopathy for rheumatic conditions (n = 6)	392	Yes	Combined OR = 2.19	Homeopathic remedies work better than placebo	Not enough trials for any specific condition to allow reliable assessment
Long (2001) [20]	All RCTs of homeopathy for osteoarthritis (n = 4)	406	Yes	No meta-analysis possible	No clear trend in favour of homeopathy	Not enough evidence for reliable assessment

RCT = randomized clinical trial, OR = odds ratio, RR = relative risk.

^°Classical homeopathy = approach where remedies are individualized according to patient characteristics deemed important by homeopaths.