Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28340607›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robert T Mathie, Nitish Ramparsad, Lynn A Legg, Jürgen Clausen, Sian Moss, Jonathan R T Davidson, Claudia-Martina Messow, Alex McConnachie

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
26.6field-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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Authorship network bias in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Subcutaneous application ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Robert T MathieHomeopathy Research Institute, London, UK. robertmathie@hri-research.org.
Nitish RamparsadRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Lynn A LeggDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Jürgen ClausenKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany.
Sian MossHomeopathy Research Institute, London, UK.
Jonathan R T DavidsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Claudia-Martina MessowRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Alex McConnachieRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBHomeopathy Research Institute · GBDuke Medical Center · USKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung · DEUniversity of Strathclyde · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

methodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.

resultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.

conclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Indexed as

Double-Blind MethodHomeopathyHumansPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePlacebosMeta-analysisNon-individualised homeopathyRandomised controlled trialsSensitivity analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28340607
PMCPMC5366148
OpenAlexW2603737473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.