Overview and quality assessment of health economic evaluations for homeopathic therapy: an updated systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Likewise other medical interventions, economic evaluations of homeopathy contribute to the evidence base of therapeutic concepts and are needed for socioeconomic decision-making. A 2013 review was updated and extended to gain a current overview. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the terms 'cost' and 'homeopathy' from January 2012 to July 2022 was performed in electronic databases. Two independent reviewers checked records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Six studies were added to 15 from the previous review. Synthesizing both health outcomes and costs showed homeopathic treatment being at least equally effective for less or similar costs than control in 14 of 21 studies. Three found improved outcomes at higher costs, two of which showed cost-effectiveness for homeopathy by incremental analysis. One found similar results and three similar outcomes at higher costs for homeopathy. CHEC values ranged between two and 16, with studies before 2009 having lower values (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 3.4) than newer studies (9.4 ± 4.3). CONCLUSION: Although results of the CHEC assessment show a positive chronological development, the favorable cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatments seen in a small number of high-quality studies is undercut by too many examples of methodologically poor research.

To help make decisions about homeopathy in healthcare, it is important, as with other medical treatments, to look at whether this treatment is effective in relation to its costs; in other words, to see if it is cost-effective. The aim of the current work was to update the picture of scientific studies available on this topic until 2012. To this purpose, two different researchers screened electronic literature databases for studies between January 2012 and July 2022 which assessed both the costs and the effects of a homeopathic treatment. They did this according to strict rules to make sure that no important study was missed. They reviewed the search results, gathered information from the studies, and assessed the quality of the studies using a set of criteria. They detected six additional new studies to the 15 already known from the previous work. Overall, they found that in 14 out of 21 studies, homeopathic treatment was at least equally effective for less or similar costs. For the remaining seven studies, costs were equal or higher for homeopathy. Of these seven, two were shown to be advantageous for homeopathy: indeed, specific economic analyses demonstrated that the benefit of the homeopathic treatment compensated for the higher costs. For the remaining five studies, the higher or equal costs of homeopathic treatment were not compensated by a better effect. The quality of the studies varied, with older studies generally being of lower quality compared to newer ones. The authors concluded that although the quality of research on homeopathy's cost-effectiveness has improved over time, and some high-quality studies show that it can be a cost-effective option, there are still many poorly conducted studies which make it difficult to offer a definitive statement. In other words, while there is some evidence that homeopathy can be effective in relation to its costs, there are still many studies that are not very reliable, which means that interested parties need to be cautious about drawing conclusions.

Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review.

CONTEXT: Economic evaluations of commonly used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies such as homeopathy are needed to contribute to the evidence base on which policy makers, clinicians, health-care payers, as well as patients base their health-care decisions in an era of constrained resources. OBJECTIVES: To review and assess existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. METHODS: Literature search was made to retrieve relevant publications using AMED, the Cochrane Library, CRD (DARE, NHS EED, HTA), EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the journal Homeopathy (former British Homoeopathic Journal). A hand search of relevant publications was carried out. Homeopathy researchers were contacted. Identified publications were independently assessed by two authors. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant articles reported on 14 economic evaluations of homeopathy. Thirteen studies reported numbers of patients: a total of 3,500 patients received homeopathic treatment (median 97, interquartile range 48-268), and 10 studies reported on control group participants (median 57, IQR 40-362). Eight out of 14 studies found improvements in patients' health together with cost savings. Four studies found that improvements in homeopathy patients were at least as good as in control group patients, at comparable costs. Two studies found improvements similar to conventional treatment, but at higher costs. Studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: Although the identified evidence of the costs and potential benefits of homeopathy seemed promising, studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions based on existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. Recommendations for future research are presented.