Table 1.
Systematic reviews of clinical trials of homoeopathy
| Features | ||||||
| Author Year | Indication | Homoeopathy/ | Studies | 1 / 2 / 3 / | Results | Conclusion |
| Control | 4 / 5 | |||||
| All homoeopathy in all conditions | ||||||
| Cucherat | all | all/placebo | 17 RCT | y / y / y / | Combined p value for an effect | There is some evidence that |
| 2000 [7] | n /y | over placebo p = 0.000036, for | homoeopathy is more than placebo. | |||
| best trials only p = 0.08 | Studies of high quality more likely to be | |||||
| negative | ||||||
| Linde 97 [8] | all | all/placebo | 89 RCT | y / y / y / | OR of all trials over placebo 2.45 | Results not compatbile with the |
| y /y | (95%CI 2.05; 2.93), in better trials | hypothesis that all homeo-pathy is | ||||
| 1.66 (1.33; 2.08) | placebo. No firm evidence for any | |||||
| single condition | ||||||
| Walach 97 | all | all/placebo, | 41 RCT | y / p / y / | Random effect size g = 0.259 | The effects of homoeopathy are not |
| [9] | conventional | y / y | (95%CI -0.319; 0.837), fixed | different from placebo on a statistical | ||
| effects 0.295 (0.223; 0.366) | level | |||||
| Lutz 93 [10] | all | all/placebo, | 21 RCT/CCT | ? / n / y / | Results of available studies | No clear conclusions drawn. |
| conventional | y / p | contradictory | (Comment: thesis mainly discussing | |||
| problems of meta-analysis) | ||||||
| Kleijnen 91 | all | all/placebo, | 107 CCT | y / p / y / | 81 trials reported positive results. | Available evidence positive but not |
| [11] | conventional | y / n | Most trials low quality but many | sufficient to draw definitive conclusions | ||
| exceptions | ||||||
| Hill 90 [12] | all | all/placebo, | 40 RCT | n / p / y / | The authors of half of the studies | The results do not provide acceptable |
| conventional | y / n | concluded that homoeopathy was | evidence that homoeopathy treatments | |||
| effective, further 7 promising | are effective | |||||
| Individualized homoeopathy in all conditions | ||||||
| Ernst 99 | all | individualized/ | 3 RCT, 3 CCT | y / p / n / | All trials were burdened with | The relative efficacy of individualized |
| [13] | conventional | y / n | serious methodological flaws. | homoeopathy compared to | ||
| Results non-uniform | conventional treatments is not known | |||||
| Linde 98 | all | individualized/ | 32 RCT | y / y / y / | Responder RR vs. placebo 1.62 | Available evidence suggests effects |
| [14] | placebo, convent. | y / y | (95%CI 1.17; 2.23), in better | over placebo. Evidence not convincing | ||
| quality trials 1.12 (0.87; 1.44) | due to shortcomings and | |||||
| inconsistencies | ||||||
| Various homoeopathic treatments in a single condition/area | ||||||
| Barnes 97 | postoperative | various/placebo | 4 RCT, 2 CCT | y / y / y / | Time to first flatus in homoeopathy | Available evidence positive but several |
| [15] | ileus | y / y | significantly shorter. Best trial | caveats preclude definitive conclusions | ||
| negative | ||||||
| Ernst 98 | delayed- | various/placebo | 8 double-blind | y / y / y / | Most trials with severe flaws. The | Published evidence does not support |
| [16] | onset muscle | trials (3 | y / n | 3 RCT showed no significant | the hypothesis that homoeopathic | |
| soreness | explicitly RCT) | effects over placebo | remedies are effective for muscle | |||
| soreness | ||||||
| Jacobs 91* | rheumatic | various/placebo | 4 CCT | p / y / n / | 3 of 4 trials positive. Quality poor | No specific conclusion on |
| [17] | diseases | y / n | homoeopathy (generally: no convincing | |||
| evidence for alternative therapies in | ||||||
| rheumat.) | ||||||
| Linde 98 | asthma | various/placebo | 3 RCT | y / y / y / | Trials highly heterogeneous. Two | Currently available evidence insufficient |
| [18] | y / n | report statistically significant | to assess the possible role of | |||
| effects | homoeopathy in the treatment of | |||||
| asthma | ||||||
| Arnica in various conditions (mainly various tissue traumata) | ||||||
| Lüdtke 99 | all | arnica/placebo, | 23 RCT, 14 | y / y / y / | Quality often low. 13 of 35 studies | Available evidence suggests that arnica |
| [19] | no treatment | CCT | n / n | vs. placebo with significant results, | can be efficacious. Further rigorous | |
| 10 with trend | trials needed | |||||
| Ernst 98 | all (mainly | arnica/placebo, | 4 RCT, 4 CCT | y / y / y / | 2 trials positive, 2 trials positive | Claims that homoeopathic arnica is |
| [20] | trauma) | conventional | y / n | trend. Most studies with severe | efficacious are not supported by | |
| flaws | rigorous trials | |||||
| Similar homoeopathic treatments in one condition/a group of conditions | ||||||
| Taylor | allergic | isopathic | 4 RCT | n / n / n / | Pooled analysis of 100 mm visual | Isopathic nosodes were different from |
| 2000** [21] | conditions | nosodes/placebo | y / y | analogue scores 9.8 (95%CI | placebo on both subjective and | |
| 4.2;15.4) mm better with isopathy | objective measures | |||||
| Vickers | influenza-like | oscillococcinum/ | 7 RCT | y / y / y / | No evidence for preventative | Oscillococcinum probably reduces the |
| 2000 [22] | syndrome | placebo | y / y | effect (3 trials) but reduction of | duration of influenza-like syndromes. | |
| length of illness in treatment trials | Further trials needed | |||||
| Ernst 99 | headache | individualized/ | 4 RCT | y / p / y / | one trial positive, one partially | The trial data do not suggest an effect |
| [23] | prophylaxis | placebo | y / n | positive, 2 negative | over placebo in the prophylaxis of | |
| migraine or headache | ||||||
| Wiesenauer | pollinosis | galphimia/placebo | 8 RCT, 1 CS, | p / n / n / | Responder RR galphimia vs. | Galphimia is significantly more effective |
| 96** [24,25] | 2 UCS | y / y | placebo from 7 trials 1.25 (95%CI | than placebo | ||
| 1.09; 1.43) | ||||||
*Disease-focused review on a variety of complementary medicine interventions including homoeopathy; **Meta-analytic overviews of researchers of their own trials on the topic Features: 1 = comprehensive search, 2 = explicit inclusion criteria, 3 = formal quality assessment, 4 = summary of results for each included study, 5 = meta-analysis; y = yes, p = partly, n = no, - = not applicable, ? = unclear RCT = randomized controlled trials, CCT = non-randomized controlled trials, CS = cohort study, UCS = uncontrolled study; OR = odds ratio, RR = rate ratio