By Klaus Linde, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart, Florian Eitel, Larry V Hedges, and Wayne B Jonas

From The Lancet
Saturday, 20 September 1997
Vd, 23E0 No. S081 pages 634-84

Summary

Background Homoeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homoeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo.

Methods

We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contacts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homoeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 186 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homoeopathy type, dilution, “remedy”, population, and outcomes.

Findings

The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2-45 (95% Cl 2-05. 2-93) in favour of homoeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1-66 (1-33. 2-08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1-78 (1-03, 3-10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2-03 (1-51, 2-74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of —0-22 standard deviations (95% Cl —0-36, —0-09) for flatus, and —0-18 SDs (-0-33, —0-03) for stool (both p<0-05).

Interpretation

The results of our meta-analysis are notcompatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.