Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review

Introduction: A new programme of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy will distinguish important attributes of RCT records, including: placebo controlled versus other-than-placebo (OTP) controlled; individualised versus non-individualised homeopathy; peer-reviewed (PR) versus non peer-reviewed (NPR) sources.

Aims: (a) To outline the methods used to search and categorise the RCT literature; (b) to report details of the records retrieved; (c) to compare our retrieved records with those reported in two previous systematic reviews (Linde et al., 1997; Shang et al., 2005).

Methods: Ten major electronic databases were searched for records published up to the end of 2011. A record was accepted for subsequent systematic review if it was a substantive report of a clinical trial of homeopathic treatment or prophylaxis in humans, randomised and controlled, and published in a PR or NPR journal.

Results: 489 records were potentially eligible: 226 were rejected as non-journal, minor or repeat publications, or lacking randomisation and/or controls and/or a ‘homeopathic’ intervention; 263 (164 PR, 99 NPR) were acceptable for systematic review. The 263 accepted records comprised 217 (137 PR, 80 NPR) placebo-controlled RCTs, of which 121 were included by, 66 were published after, and 30 were potentially eligible for, but not listed by, Linde or Shang. The 137 PR records of placebo-controlled RCTs comprise 41 on individualised homeopathy and 96 on non-individualised homeopathy.

Conclusion: Our findings clarify the RCT literature in homeopathy. The 263 accepted journal papers will be the basis for our forthcoming programme of systematic reviews.

Keywords

Homeopathy - Literature search strategy - Randomised controlled trials - Systematic review

^d Mother tinctures are therefore excluded.

^e Studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria if they used an explicitly labelled ‘anthroposophic’ or ‘homotoxicologic’ medicine prepared homeopathically and whose dilution (or that of each of its components) was ≥1X.

• References

• 1 de Lange de Klerk E.S.M., Blommers J., Kuik D.J., Bezemer P.D., Feenstra L. Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994; 309: 1329-1332 [Reference A11 in Table 1].
• 2 Fisher P., Greenwood A., Huskisson E.C., Turner B., Belon P. Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). BMJ 1989; 299: 365-366 [Reference A66 in Table 1].
• 3 Reilly D., Taylor M.A., Beattie N.G.M. et al. Is evidence for homeopathy reproducible?. Lancet 1994; 344: 1601-1606 [Reference A112 in Table 1].
• 4 Stevinson C., Devaraj V.S., Fountain-Barber A., Hawkins S., Ernst E. Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising: randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery. J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 60-65 [Reference A122 in Table 1].
• 5 White A., Slade P., Hunt C., Hart A., Ernst E. Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Thorax 2003; 58: 317-321 [Reference A39 in Table 1].
• 6 Faculty of Homeopathy. Randomised controlled trials in homeopathy. http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/ [accessed 20.07.12].
• 7 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Evidence check 2: homeopathy. Fourth report of session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office Ltd; 22 February 2010: pp Ev37–Ev43.
• 8 Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843.
• 9 Shang A., Huwiler-Muntener K., Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732.
• 10 Anon. Homeopathy – dilute information and little knowledge. Bandolier 1997; 45: Article 2.
• 11 Lüdtke R., Rutten A.L.B. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 1197-1204.
• 12 Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Sterne J.A.C. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration.;
• 13 Mathie R.T., Roniger H., Van Wassenhoven M. et al. Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 49.
• 14 Lefebvre C., Manheimer E., Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.2. 2009. The Cochrane Collaboration.;
• 15 Dean M.E. The trials of homeopathy. Origins, structures and development. Essen, Germany: KVC Verlag; 2004.
• 16 Ernst E., Pittler M.H., Wider B. (eds). The Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine: An Evidence-based Approach. 2nd edn. 2006. Edinburgh: Mosby Elsevier.;
• 17 Swayne J. (ed). International Dictionary of Homeopathy. 2000. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.;
• 18 13th edn. Birmingham AL: EBSCO Publishing; The Serials Directory: An International Reference Book . Vol V 1999.
• 19 Dantas F., Fisher P. A systematic review of homoeopathic pathogenetic trials (‘provings’) published in the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1995. In: Ernst E., Hahn E.G. (eds). Homoeopathy: A Critical Appraisal. 1998. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 69-97.
• 20 Shang A., Huwiler-Muntener K., Nartey L. et al. Journal downloads: The Lancet, August 27, 2005. List of excluded homoeopathy studies. http://www.ispm.ch/fileadmin/doc_download/1435.List_of_excluded_homoeopathy_studies.pdf [accessed 16.08.12].
• 21 Vickers A., Smith C. Homeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 (03) Article No. CD001957.
• 22 Ernst E. Classical homeopathy versus conventional treatments: a systematic review. Perfusion (Nürnberg) 1999; 12: 13-15.
• 23 Linde K., Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med 1998; 4: 371-388.
• 24 Boon H., MacPherson H., Fleishman S. et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2007; 4: 279-285.
• 25 Fønnebø V., Grimsgaard S., Walach H. et al. Researching complementary and alternative treatments – the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 7.
• 26 Ernst E., Pittler M.H. Efficacy of homeopathic arnica. A systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 1187-1190.
• 27 Sense about Science. Peer review. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review.html [accessed 21.02.12].