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.

Identifying complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for insomnia treatment and care: a systematic review and critical assessment of comprehensive clinical practice guidelines.

Background: There is a need for evidence-informed guidance on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for insomnia because of its widespread utilization and a lack of guidance on the balance of benefits and harms. This systematic review aimed to identify and summarize the CAM recommendations associated with insomnia treatment and care from existing comprehensive clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The quality of the eligible guidelines was appraised to assess the credibility of these recommendations. Methods: Formally published CPGs incorporating CAM recommendations for insomnia management were searched for in seven databases from their inception to January 2023. The NCCIH website and six websites of international guideline developing institutions were also retrieved. The methodological and reporting quality of each included guideline was appraised using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT statement, respectively. Results: Seventeen eligible GCPs were included, and 14 were judged to be of moderate to high methodological and reporting quality. The reporting rate of eligible CPGs ranged from 42.9 to 97.1%. Twenty-two CAM modalities were implicated, involving nutritional or natural products, physical CAM, psychological CAM, homeopathy, aromatherapy, and mindful movements. Recommendations for these modalities were mostly unclear, unambiguous, uncertain, or conflicting. Logically explained graded recommendations supporting the CAM use in the treatment and/or care of insomnia were scarce, with bibliotherapy, Tai Chi, Yoga, and auriculotherapy positively recommended based on little and weak evidence. The only consensus was that four phytotherapeutics including valerian, chamomile, kava, and aromatherapy were not recommended for insomnia management because of risk profile and/or limited benefits. Conclusions: Existing guidelines are generally limited in providing clear, evidence-informed recommendations for the use of CAM therapies for insomnia management due to a lack of high-quality evidence and multidisciplinary consultation in CPG development. More well-designed studies to provide reliable clinical evidence are therefore urgently needed. Allowing the engagement of a range of interdisciplinary stakeholders in future updates of CPGs is also warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=369155, identifier: CRD42022369155.