Research

44% of randomised controlled trials in homeopathy have reported positive effects; only 8% have been negative.

Evidence summary

homeopathic pillules
Do you need research evidence to back up your request for a homeopathy referral? Download our two page summary of the evidence here. Or look at the list of conditions with positive evidence.

The evidence for homeopathy

There is a growing body of clinical evidence to show that homeopathy has a positive effect.

Randomised controlled trials

The widely accepted method of proving whether or not a medical intervention works is called a randomised controlled trial (RCT). One group of patients, the control group, receive placebo (a “dummy” pill) or standard treatment, and another group of patients receive the medicine being tested. The trial becomes double-blinded when neither the patient nor the practitioner knows which treatment the patient is getting. RCTs are often referred to as the “gold standard” of clinical research.

A total of 142 RCTs in homeopathy have been published in good quality scientific journals: positive effects have been reported in 63 (44% of the total) and negative findings have been reported in 11 (8%), while 68 (48%) have not been conclusively positive or negative.

Systematic reviews

The most solid evidence for a treatment comes from reviewing more than one RCT. This is known as a systematic review. Four out of five major systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have concluded (with certain caveats) that homeopathy has an effect greater than placebo. Systematic reviews of RCTs in specific medical areas have presented positive conclusions for homeopathy in six conditions: childhood diarrhoea, hay fever, influenza treatment, post-operative ileus, respiratory tract infection and vertigo.

For full details of all 142 RCTs and more in-depth information on the research, visit the research section of the Faculty of Homeopathy's website. This includes details of those RCTs that were either negative or non-conclusive.

Difficulties with RCTs
The RCT model of measuring efficacy of a drug does pose problems for homeopathic research. In homeopathy, treatment is usually tailored to the individual. A homeopathic prescription is based not only on the symptoms of disease in the patient but on a host of other factors that are particular to that patient, including lifestyle, emotional health, personality, eating habits and medical history. These factors can often make a “one drug to fit all patients” type of RCT less meaningful in homeopathic research.

Non-randomised studies

There are other types of study that form an essential part of the evidence base for any medical intervention. Clinical outcome studies often record the patient's self-reported response after treatment. Studies of this kind are neither randomised nor controlled. They are seen as being close to the bottom of the hierarchy of research evidence. However, non-randomised studies such as these can reflect how homeopathy is working in practice, and indicate where RCT research might be targeted.

The experience of patients
Many patients referred for homeopathic treatment have a complexity of health problems. They may suffer from more than one disease. They could be young children or elderly people. They may be pregnant. None of these sorts of patients would be accepted for a drug trial in conventional medicine so their reactions to treatment are not reflected in the results of an RCT. The recording of clinical data from everyday practice reflects the experiences of real patients and is becoming an increasingly valued part of evidence-based medicine. View results from the homeopathic hospitals.

There are 20 non-randomised studies that have focused on a particular medical condition. References to these are listed, along with RCTs and systematic reviews, in our document: Clinical research evidence in favour of homeopathy.