Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication

Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication
Studientyp	Systematisches Review von Metaanalysen
Status	Abgeschlossen
Personen	H. J. Hamre, A. Glockmann, K. von Ammon, D. S. Riley, H. Kiene
Beginn	Dezember 2020
Ende	2023
Publikation(en)
Erkrankung	Diverse
Intervention	Homöopathie
siehe auch Portal:Wissenschaft

Dieses im Oktober 2023 publizierte systematische Review untersuchte die vorliegenden Metaanalysen zu randomisierten placebo-kontrollierten Studien zur Homöopathie.

Rezeption

Eine Replik zur Kritik durch Edzard Ernst auf seinem Blog im Oktober 2023 erfolgte durch die Autoren auf ihrer Website, eine weitere Replik zur Kritik an der Arbeit wurde im Mai 2024 durch die Autoren in der deutschen Ärztezeitung veröffentlicht.

Abstract

Background and objective

Since 1997, several meta-analyses (MAs) of placebo-controlled randomised efficacy trials of homoeopathy for any indication (PRETHAIs) have been published with different methods, results and conclusions. To date, a formal assessment of these MAs has not been performed. The main objective of this systematic review of MAs of PRETHAIs was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment.

Methods

The inclusion criteria were as follows: MAs of PRETHAIs in humans; all ages, countries, settings, publication languages; and MAs published from 1 Jan. 1990 to 30 Apr. 2023. The exclusion criteria were as follows: systematic reviews without MAs; MAs restricted to age or gender groups, specific indications, or specific homoeopathic treatments; and MAs that did not assess efficacy. We searched 8 electronic databases up to 14 Dec. 2020, with an update search in 6 databases up to 30 April 2023.

The primary outcome was the effect estimate for all included trials in each MA and after restricting the sample to trials with high methodological quality, according to predefined criteria. The risk of bias for each MA was assessed by the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE framework. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the proportion of MAs showing a significant positive effect of homoeopathy vs. no significant difference.

Results

Six MAs were included, covering individualised homoeopathy (I-HOM, n = 2), nonindividualised homoeopathy (NI-HOM, n = 1) and all homoeopathy types (ALL-HOM = I-HOM + NI-HOM, n = 3). The MAs comprised between 16 and 110 trials, and the included trials were published from 1943–2014. The median trial sample size ranged from 45 to 97 patients. The risk of bias (low/unclear/high) was rated as low for three MAs and high for three MAs.

Effect estimates for all trials in each MA showed a significant positive effect of homoeopathy compared to placebo (5 of 5 MAs, no data in 1 MA). Sensitivity analyses with sample restriction to high-quality trials were available from 4 MAs; the effect remained significant in 3 of the MAs (2 MAs assessed ALL-HOM, 1 MA assessed I-HOM) and was no longer significant in 1 MA (which assessed NI-HOM).

Discussion

The quality of evidence for positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo (high/moderate/low/very low) was high for I-HOM and moderate for ALL-HOM and NI-HOM. There was no support for the alternative hypothesis of no outcome difference between homoeopathy and placebo.

The available MAs of PRETHAIs reveal significant positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo. This is in accordance with laboratory experiments showing partially replicable effects of homoeopathically potentised preparations in physico-chemical, in vitro, plant-based and animal-based test systems.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020209661. The protocol for this SR was finalised and submitted on 25 Nov. 2020 and registered on 26 Dec. 2020.