Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37805577›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2023

Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication.

H J Hamre, A Glockmann, K von Ammon, D S Riley, H Kiene

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Subcutaneous application ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 2 institutions in 3 countries.

H J HamreInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology at Witten/Herdecke University (IFAEMM), Freiburg, Germany. harald.hamre@ifaemm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1098-1079
A GlockmannInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology at Witten/Herdecke University (IFAEMM), Freiburg, Germany.
K von AmmonFaculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Chair of Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
D S RileyMaryland University of Integrative Health (MUIH), Laurel, MD, USA.
H KieneInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology at Witten/Herdecke University (IFAEMM), Freiburg, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEMaryland University of Integrative Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveSince 1997, several meta-analyses (MAs) of placebo-controlled randomised efficacy trials of homoeopathy for any indication (PRETHAIs) have been published with different methods, results and conclusions. To date, a formal assessment of these MAs has not been performed. The main objective of this systematic review of MAs of PRETHAIs was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment.

methodsThe inclusion criteria were as follows: MAs of PRETHAIs in humans; all ages, countries, settings, publication languages; and MAs published from 1 Jan. 1990 to 30 Apr. 2023. The exclusion criteria were as follows: systematic reviews without MAs; MAs restricted to age or gender groups, specific indications, or specific homoeopathic treatments; and MAs that did not assess efficacy. We searched 8 electronic databases up to 14 Dec. 2020, with an update search in 6 databases up to 30 April 2023. The primary outcome was the effect estimate for all included trials in each MA and after restricting the sample to trials with high methodological quality, according to predefined criteria. The risk of bias for each MA was assessed by the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE framework. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the proportion of MAs showing a significant positive effect of homoeopathy vs. no significant difference.

resultsSix MAs were included, covering individualised homoeopathy (I-HOM, n = 2), nonindividualised homoeopathy (NI-HOM, n = 1) and all homoeopathy types (ALL-HOM = I-HOM + NI-HOM, n = 3). The MAs comprised between 16 and 110 trials, and the included trials were published from 1943-2014. The median trial sample size ranged from 45 to 97 patients. The risk of bias (low/unclear/high) was rated as low for three MAs and high for three MAs. Effect estimates for all trials in each MA showed a significant positive effect of homoeopathy compared to placebo (5 of 5 MAs, no data in 1 MA). Sensitivity analyses with sample restriction to high-quality trials were available from 4 MAs; the effect remained significant in 3 of the MAs (2 MAs assessed ALL-HOM, 1 MA assessed I-HOM) and was no longer significant in 1 MA (which assessed NI-HOM). DISCUSSION: The quality of evidence for positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo (high/moderate/low/very low) was high for I-HOM and moderate for ALL-HOM and NI-HOM. There was no support for the alternative hypothesis of no outcome difference between homoeopathy and placebo. The available MAs of PRETHAIs reveal significant positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo. This is in accordance with laboratory experiments showing partially replicable effects of homoeopathically potentised preparations in physico-chemical, in vitro, plant-based and animal-based test systems. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209661. The protocol for this SR was finalised and submitted on 25 Nov. 2020 and registered on 26 Dec. 2020.

Indexed as

HomeopathyBiasHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID37805577
PMCPMC10559431
OpenAlexW4387426576

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.