Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

BACKGROUND: The comprehensive systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy requires examination of a study's model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) as well as its risk of bias (extent of reliable evidence). OBJECTIVE: To appraise MVHT in those RCTs of non-individualised homeopathy that an associated investigation had judged as 'not at high risk of bias'. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: An assessment of MVHT was ascribed to each of 26 eligible RCTs. Another 49 RCTs were ineligible due to their high risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MVHT and the prior risk of bias rating per trial were merged to obtain a single overall quality designation ('high', 'moderate', 'low'), based on the GRADE principle of downgrading. RESULTS: The trials were rated as 'acceptable MVHT' (N = 9), 'uncertain MVHT' (N = 10) and 'inadequate MVHT' (N = 7); and, previously, as 'reliable evidence' (N = 3) and 'non-reliable evidence' (N = 23). The 26 trials were designated overall as: 'high quality' (N = 1); 'moderate quality' (N = 18); 'low quality' (N = 7). CONCLUSION: Of the 26 RCTs of non-individualised homeopathy that were judged 'not at high risk of bias', nine have been rated 'acceptable MVHT'. One of those nine studies was designated 'high quality' overall ('acceptable MVHT' and 'reliable evidence'), and is thus currently the only reported RCT that represents best therapeutic practice as well as unbiased evidence in non-individualised homeopathy. As well as minimising risk of bias, new RCTs in this area must aim to maximise MVHT and clarity of reporting.

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.

Estudios científicos en Homeopatía / Scientific studies in Homeopathy

Desde hace unas décadas, una gran parte de la población mundial dirige la vista hacia la Naturaleza en busca de métodos que le permitan prevenir las enfermedades. Dicho de otra manera, millones de personas tratan de conservar un estado de salud y bienestar armónico, sin que deban padecer efectos secundarios indeseables. El mismo deseo se encuentra latente para quienes quieren superar una dolencia aguda o una enfermedad crónica, lo que ha hecho que se interesen por la llamada medicina integrativa y, dentro de ella, de manera primordial, por la Homeopatía. A lo largo de la historia, grupos de científicos convencionales han vilipendiado a la medicina homeopática, por lo que un documento como el que escribe el doctor Ton Nicolai merece su difusión, toda vez que aporta pruebas fehacientes de la eficacia del método clínico hahneamanniano. El Dr. Nicolai, quien fue presidente del European Committee for Homeopathy, ofreció una interesante conferencia en el año 2010, misma que conserva su lucidez y vigencia, y que destaca cómo estamos experimentando un cambio de paradigma histórico ante las anomalías que presenta el sistema médico que nos ha gobernado por cientos de años.

Since a few decades back, a significant part of the population looks towards Nature in search of methods for the prevention of disease. In other words, millions of people strive to maintain a status of heath and harmonic wellbeing, without having to suffer undesirable side effects. The same yearning is latent in those who seek to overcome an acute or chronic illness, which has led to their interest in integrative medicine, and within it, Homeopathy, in a primordial manner. Throughout history, groups of conventional scientists have disdained homeopathic medicine, which makes a document such as the one written by doctor Ton Nicolai, worthy of diffusion, for it provides reliable proof of the efficacy of the hahmenannian clinical method. Dr. Nicolai, who was president of the European Committee for Homeopathy, offered an interesting conference in 2010, which conserves both its lucidity and validity. The talk highlights the ways in which we are experiencing an historical shift of paradigm in the face of the anomalies that the medical system that has governed us for hundreds of years, presents.