ReviewBMC complementary and alternative medicine2001
Systematic reviews of complementary therapies - an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy.
Review in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research.BMC medical research methodology · 2006Pooled it
- Current Aspects Regarding the Clinical Relevance of Electroacupuncture in Dogs with Spinal Cord Injury: A Literature Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Review
- Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies-part 1.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2006Article
- Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2003Review
- How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003Article
- Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine.BMC pediatrics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComplementary therapies are widespread but controversial. We aim to provide a comprehensive collection and a summary of systematic reviews of clinical trials in three major complementary therapies (acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy). This article is dealing with homeopathy. Potentially relevant reviews were searched through the register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and bibliographies of articles and books. To be included articles had to review prospective clinical trials of homeopathy; had to describe review methods explicitly; had to be published; and had to focus on treatment effects. Information on conditions, interventions, methods, results and conclusions was extracted using a pretested form and summarized descriptively.
resultsEighteen out of 22 potentially relevant reviews preselected in the screening process met the inclusion criteria. Six reviews addressed the question whether homeopathy is effective across conditions and interventions. The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing. For isopathic nosodes for allergic conditions, oscillococcinum for influenza-like syndromes and galphimia for pollinosis the evidence is promising while in other areas reviewed the results are equivocal.
interpretationReviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.