Our systematic review programme
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy
Authors: Robert T Mathie,1 Lynn A Legg,2 Jürgen Clausen,3 Jonathan R T Davidson,4 Suzanne M Lloyd,5 Ian Ford 5
1 British Homeopathic Association, Luton, UK
2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
3 Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany
4 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University Medical Center,
Durham, North Carolina, USA
5 Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Following the publication of its comprehensive overview of the research literature (Mathie et al. 2013), the BHA continues its systematic review programme with the publication of the study protocol for the second phase of the detailed review work.
The complete project will ultimately examine all the relevant papers that were identified in the literature review, reflecting the key differences between the following: peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles; placebo-controlled and other-than-placebo controlled trials; individualised and non-individualised homeopathy; treatment and prevention.
The first phase of the review programme, whose methods are outlined in the study protocol, examined 32 eligible peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.
The paper reporting the findings of this review (Mathie et al. 2014) has been published in the journal Systematic Reviews: A statistically significant overall effect of individualised homeopathic treatment was identified over that of placebos.
These overall findings suggest that homeopathic medicines have specific treatment effects. Such effects may be difficult to observe readily in any one given placebo-controlled trial of individualised homeopathy, in which both groups of participants have had exactly the same type of empathetic homeopathic consultation, followed by the homeopathic prescription or the placebo.
The overall quality of the RCT evidence was judged to be low or unclear: only 3 of the trials in the systematic review were judged to comprise ‘reliable evidence’ (Bell et al. 2004; Jacobs et al. 1994; Jacobs et al. 2001). This indicates the need for caution in interpreting the review’s findings, and an obvious requirement for new and higher-quality research in this field.
The second phase of the review programme, whose methods are outlined in a separate study protocol, will examine 96 peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.
As stated in the study protocols, the aims of this systematic review programme reflect matters of study quality (including internal validity and model validity), and focusing on two key issues: (1) in a global meta-analysis, to ascertain if treatment using homeopathic medicines can be distinguished from the same form of treatment but using placebo medicines; (2) in condition-specific meta-analyses, to quantify any effect of homeopathic treatment for medical conditions in which there is greater than one placebo-controlled RCT.
Bell I, Lewis D, Brooks A, Schwartz G, Lewis S, Walsh B, Baldwin C (2004). Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology; 43:577–582.
Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Gloyds SS, Gale JL, Crothers D (1994). Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine; a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics; 93:719–725.
Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D (2001). Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal; 20:177–183.
Mathie RT, Hacke D, Clausen J, Nicolai T, Riley DS, Fisher P (2013). Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review. Homeopathy; 102: 3–24.
Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JRT, Ford I (2014). Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews; 3: 142.