Cargando…

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathie, Robert T, Lloyd, Suzanne M, Legg, Lynn A, Clausen, Jürgen, Moss, Sian, Davidson, Jonathan RT, Ford, Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25480654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142
_version_ 1782356908265439232
author Mathie, Robert T
Lloyd, Suzanne M
Legg, Lynn A
Clausen, Jürgen
Moss, Sian
Davidson, Jonathan RT
Ford, Ian
author_facet Mathie, Robert T
Lloyd, Suzanne M
Legg, Lynn A
Clausen, Jürgen
Moss, Sian
Davidson, Jonathan RT
Ford, Ian
author_sort Mathie, Robert T
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos. METHODS: The review’s methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial’s risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise ‘reliable evidence’ if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. ‘Effect size’ was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed ‘uncertain risk of bias’, three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed ‘high risk of bias’. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-142) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4326322
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43263222015-02-14 Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis Mathie, Robert T Lloyd, Suzanne M Legg, Lynn A Clausen, Jürgen Moss, Sian Davidson, Jonathan RT Ford, Ian Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos. METHODS: The review’s methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial’s risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise ‘reliable evidence’ if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. ‘Effect size’ was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed ‘uncertain risk of bias’, three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed ‘high risk of bias’. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-142) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4326322/ /pubmed/25480654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 Text en © Mathie et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Mathie, Robert T
Lloyd, Suzanne M
Legg, Lynn A
Clausen, Jürgen
Moss, Sian
Davidson, Jonathan RT
Ford, Ian
Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25480654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142
work_keys_str_mv AT mathierobertt randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lloydsuzannem randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT legglynna randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT clausenjurgen randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mosssian randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT davidsonjonathanrt randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fordian randomisedplacebocontrolledtrialsofindividualisedhomeopathictreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis