Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11527508›Full record

ReviewBMC complementary and alternative medicine2001

Systematic reviews of complementary therapies - an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy.

K Linde, M Hondras, A Vickers, G ter Riet, D Melchart

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014
    Review
  4. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies-part 1.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2006
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

K LindeCentre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität, München, Kaiserstr 9, 80801 München, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
M Hondras
A Vickers
G ter Riet
D Melchart
Technical University of Munich · DEPalmer College of Chiropractic · USRoyal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

CENTER--ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE PAIN RESEARCH &EVALUATIONU24AR043346 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI BERMAN, BRIAN M · 1995 to 1998
–
NIAMS NIH HHS 5 U24-AR-43346-02
6 · The paper itself

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

AsthmaHomeopathyHumansHypersensitivityMeta-Analysis as Topic

Identifiers

PMID11527508
PMCPMC45586
OpenAlexW1557157002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.