Thuja occidentalis 30c homeopathic tablets

AimThis systematic review of clinical trial evidence aims to determine whether homeopathy can effectively relieve symptoms and reduce antibiotic use in patients diagnosed with otitis media (OM).MethodsSeven databases and four trial registries were searched. Eligible studies included randomised- and non-randomised-controlled-trials in patients diagnosed with OM. Studies on Individualised- and non-Individualised-Homeopathy (IH, non-IH) were included, and controls were inactive and/or active treatment. Primary outcomes were clinical-improvement and antibiotic-use. Data extraction, Risk of Bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were performed using established methodology.ResultsNine studies (IH = 4, non-IH = 5) comprising seven Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) and two non-RCTs (nRCTS) compared homeopathy with placebo (n = 2) or standard care (n = 7). 4/7 included RCTs reported statistically significant individual outcomes at relevant time points (symptom score, MEE, and antibiotic use) favouring homeopathy. However, heterogeneity of study designs, homeopathic interventions and outcome measures hindered the pooling of data for most outcomes, except for antibiotic use (non-IH). Add-on non-IH reduced filled antibiotic prescriptions by 46 % (RR = 0.54 [95%CI: 0.28, 1.06], P = 0.07, I2 = 12 %), but this did not reach statistical significance. Most studies demonstrated that the homeopathy group had less adverse events than the control group.ConclusionsThe evidence base for the effectiveness of homeopathy and OM treatment is modest in study number, size, and risk of bias assessment. Individual RCTs report positive effects on clinical improvement and/or antibiotic use at relevant time points with homeopathy with no safety issues. Due to heterogeneity, the current evidence is insufficient to satisfactorily answer whether homeopathy is effective for clinical improvement and reducing antibiotic use in patients with OM. A Core Outcome Set for OM for future research is warranted to improve the potential for meta-analyses and strengthen the evidence base.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

BackgroundNo systematic review has previously been carried out on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy in which the control group was an intervention other than placebo (OTP). For eligible peer-reviewed RCTs, the objectives of this study were to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic intervention compared with an active comparator or with no treatment.MethodsOur systematic review approach complied fully with the PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Cochrane methods were applied to assess RoB and to derive effect size using standard meta-analysis methods. Based on a thorough and systematic literature search, the following key attributes of the published research were distinguished: individualised homeopathy (n = 1 RCT)/non-individualised homeopathy (n = 19); treatment (n = 14)/prophylaxis (n = 6); active controls (n = 18)/untreated controls (n = 2). The trials were highly diverse, representing 12 different medical conditions in 6 different species.ResultsNo trial had sufficiently low RoB to be judged as reliable evidence: 16 of the 20 RCTs had high RoB; the remaining four had uncertain RoB in several domains of assessment. For three trials with uncertain RoB and without overt vested interest, it was inconclusive whether homeopathy combined with conventional intervention was more or was less effective than conventional intervention alone for modulation of immune response in calves, or in the prophylaxis of cattle tick or of diarrhoea in piglets.ConclusionDue to the poor reliability of their data, OTP-controlled trials do not currently provide useful insight into the effectiveness of homeopathy in animals.

Abstract licence: CC BY