SynthesisSystematic reviews2023
Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved quality of life and prolonged survival with add-on homeopathic treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Homeopathic medication for seasonal allergic rhinitis-a randomised placebo-controlled trial.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Trial
- Dissemination of evidence-based homeopathy before Brazilian medical institutions as a strategy to strengthen the homeopathic medical specialty.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Clinical research on homeopathic preparations: protocol template for a series of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Subcutaneous application ofFrontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- ENHANCE: a global collaborative research programme investigating the role of homeopathy in antimicrobial stewardship.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2026Article
- Framework for evidence synthesis of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine systems incorporating context and complexity, illustrated by the example of homeopathy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Homoeopathic Treatments for Sleep Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review According to the Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Characterisation of Aqueous Ultra-high Homeopathic Potencies: Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis.Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy · 2025Article
- The current state of the quality of homeopathic clinical research.Complementary therapies in medicine · 2025Review
- The Introduction of the Global Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Healthcare (TCIH) Research Agenda on Antimicrobial Resistance and Its Added Value to the WHO and the WHO/FAO/UNEP/WOAH 2023 Research Agendas on Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Feasibility in a homeopathy for seasonal allergic rhinitis RCT: importance of therapeutic relationship and organizational capacity.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review on indigenous therapeutic approaches in kidney care using Ayush medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- "Homeopathy is not placebo effect": proof of the scientific evidence for homeopathy.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Homeopathy is not placebo effect: proof of the scientific evidence for homeopathy in open access trilingual e-book.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Commentary: Working with patients' treatment expectations - what we can learn from homeopathy.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.