Positive Health Online
Your Country
![[Image: http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2836.df7d2315253110ff5b3a566f94871f99.jpg "http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk")
![[Image: https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/4046.12831f50177f8848ee87b8e94411d6b3.jpg "https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/")
![[Image: http://www.balens.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2148.50367fa908013fae0a7f1a171543ef92.jpg "http://www.balens.co.uk")
![[Image: http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/1859.1296090fd8385e7ceff51c8011559097.jpg "http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer")
Research: CUCHERAT and colleagues,
Listed in Issue 60
Abstract
CUCHERAT and colleagues, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospitals of Lyon and University Claude Bernard, France. mcu@upcl.univ-lyonl.fr reviewed evidence of clinical efficiency of homeopathy from a meta-analysis of clinical trials .
Background
Methodology
Published and unpublished reports of controlled clinical trials available up to June 1998, identified by searching bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, PsychInfo, Cinahl, British Library Stock Alert Service, SIGLE, Amed), references lists of selected papers, hand searching homeopathic journals and conference abstracts, and contacting pharmaceutical companies. Trials were selected using an unblinded process by two reviewers. The selection criteria were randomized, controlled trials in which the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was assessed relative to placebo in patients using clinical or surrogate endpoints. Prevention trials or those evaluating only biological effects were excluded. One hundred and eighteen randomized trials were identified and evaluated for inclusion. Sixteen trials, representing 17 comparisons and including a total of 2,617 evaluated patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria.: Data were extracted by two reviewers independently, using a summary form. Disagreements were resolved by a third person.
Results
Initial analysis of the 17 comparisons suggested a significant effect for the use of homeopathy. However, as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner based on their level of quality, homeopathic treatments were shown to have insignificant effects.
Conclusion
There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo ; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.
References
Cucherat et al. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 56 (1): 27-33. Apr 2000.
