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.

Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.

BACKGROUND: To date, our programme of systematic reviews has assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathy separately for risk of bias (RoB) and for model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present paper was to bring together our published RoB and MVHT findings and, using an approach based on GRADE methods, to merge the quality appraisals of these same RCTs, examining the impact on meta-analysis results. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: As previously, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were the subject of study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, the separate ratings for RoB and MVHT were merged to obtain a single overall quality designation ('high', 'moderate, "low", 'very low'), based on the GRADE principle of 'downgrading'. RESULTS: Merging the assessment of MVHT and RoB identified three trials of 'high quality', eight of 'moderate quality', 18 of 'low quality' and three of 'very low quality'. There was no association between a trial's MVHT and its RoB or its direction of treatment effect (P>0.05). The three 'high quality' trials were those already labelled 'reliable evidence' based on RoB, and so no change was found in meta-analysis based on best-quality evidence: a small, statistically significant, effect favouring homeopathy. CONCLUSION: Accommodating MVHT in overall quality designation of RCTs has not modified our pre-existing conclusion that the medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific, treatment effects.

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

BACKGROUND: Though potentially an important limitation in the literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy, the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) has not previously been systematically investigated. OBJECTIVE: As an integral part of a programme of systematic reviews, to assess MVHT of eligible RCTs of individualised homeopathic treatment. METHODS: From 46 previously identified papers in the category, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were thus the subject of the study. For each of six domains of assessment per trial, MVHT was judged independently by three randomly allocated assessors from our group, who reached a final verdict by consensus discussion as necessary. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were judged overall as 'acceptable' MVHT, nine as 'uncertain' MVHT, and four as 'inadequate' MVHT. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support concern that deficient MVHT has frequently undermined the published findings of RCTs of individualised homeopathy. However, the 13 trials with 'uncertain' or 'inadequate' MVHT will be a focus of attention in supplementary meta-analysis. New RCTs of individualised homeopathy must aim to maximise MVHT and to enable its assessment through clear reporting.

Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study.

BACKGROUND: A method for assessing the model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy is needed. To date, only conventional standards for assessing intrinsic bias (internal validity) of trials have been invoked, with little recognition of the special characteristics of homeopathy. We aimed to identify relevant judgmental domains to use in assessing the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). We define MVHT as the extent to which a homeopathic intervention and the main measure of its outcome, as implemented in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reflect 'state-of-the-art' homeopathic practice. METHODS: Using an iterative process, an international group of experts developed a set of six judgmental domains, with associated descriptive criteria. The domains address: (I) the rationale for the choice of the particular homeopathic intervention; (II) the homeopathic principles reflected in the intervention; (III) the extent of homeopathic practitioner input; (IV) the nature of the main outcome measure; (V) the capability of the main outcome measure to detect change; (VI) the length of follow-up to the endpoint of the study. Six papers reporting RCTs of homeopathy of varying design were randomly selected from the literature. A standard form was used to record each assessor's independent response per domain, using the optional verdicts 'Yes', 'Unclear', 'No'. Concordance among the eight verdicts per domain, across all six papers, was evaluated using the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: The six judgmental domains enabled MVHT to be assessed with 'fair' to 'almost perfect' concordance in each case. For the six RCTs examined, the method allowed MVHT to be classified overall as 'acceptable' in three, 'unclear' in two, and 'inadequate' in one. CONCLUSION: Future systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy should adopt the MVHT method as part of a complete appraisal of trial validity.

Towards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: We report findings from a pilot data collection study within a programme of quality assurance, improvement and development across all five homeopathic hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). AIMS: (1) To pilot the collection of clinical data in the homeopathic hospital outpatient setting, recording patient-reported outcome since first appointment; (2) to sample the range of medical complaints that secondary-care doctors treat using homeopathy, and thus identify the nature and complexity of complaints most frequently treated nationally; (3) to present a cross section of outcome scores by appointment number, including that for the most frequently treated medical complaints; (4) to explore approaches to standard setting for homeopathic practice outcome in patients treated at the homeopathic hospitals. METHODS: A total of 51 medical practitioners took part in data collection over a 4-week period. Consecutive patient appointments were recorded under the headings: (1) date of first appointment in the current series; (2) appointment number; (3) age of patient; (4) sex of patient; (5) main medical complaint being treated; (6) whether other main medical complaint(s); (7) patient-reported change in health, using Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL) and its derivative, the ORIDL Profile Score (ORIDL-PS; range, -4 to +4, where a score or=+2 indicates an effect on the quality of a patient's daily life); (8) receipt of other complementary medicine for their main medical complaint. RESULTS: The distribution of patient age was bimodal: main peak, 49 years; secondary peak, 6 years. Male:female ratio was 1:3.5. Data were recorded on a total of 1797 individual patients: 195 first appointments, 1602 follow-ups (FUs). Size of clinical service and proportion of patients who attended more than six visits varied between hospitals. A total of 235 different medical complaints were reported. The 30 most commonly treated complaints were (in decreasing order of frequency): eczema; chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS); menopausal disorder; osteoarthritis; depression; breast cancer; rheumatoid arthritis; asthma; anxiety; irritable bowel syndrome; multiple sclerosis; psoriasis; allergy (unspecified); fibromyalgia; migraine; premenstrual syndrome; chronic rhinitis; headache; vitiligo; seasonal allergic rhinitis; chronic intractable pain; insomnia; ulcerative colitis; acne; psoriatic arthropathy; urticaria; ovarian cancer; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); epilepsy; sinusitis. The proportion of patients with important co-morbidity was higher in those seen after visit 6 (56.9%) compared with those seen up to and including that point (40.7%; P<0.001). The proportion of FU patients reporting ORIDL-PS>or=+2 (improvement affecting daily living) increased overall with appointment number: 34.5% of patients at visit 2 and 59.3% of patients at visit 6, for example. Amongst the four most frequently treated complaints, the proportion of patients that reported ORIDL-PS>or=+2 at visit numbers greater than 6 varied between 59.3% (CFS) and 73.3% (menopausal disorder). CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully piloted a process of national clinical data collection using patient-reported outcome in homeopathic hospital outpatients, identifying a wide range and complexity of medical complaints treated in that setting. After a series of homeopathy appointments, a high proportion of patients, often representing "effectiveness gaps" for conventional medical treatment, reported improvement in health affecting their daily living. These pilot findings are informing our developing programme of standard setting for homeopathic care in the hospital outpatient context.