A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca

Lüdtke, Rainer; Wiesenauer, M.

doi:10.1038/sj.bhj.5800391

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several other systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials of homoeopathic remedies have been carried out. Several of these systematic reviews have included all controlled trials of homoeopathy as above, trials of homoeopathic treatments in a single therapeutic condition or area, such as postoperative ileus [31] or asthma [32], a specific homoeopathic remedy (such as arnica) in various conditions [33], or similar homoeopathic treatments in a single condition or similar conditions [34]. Linde et al summarized this information in a systematic review of systematic reviews, which included 18 such publications [35].…”

Section: Homoeopathic Remediesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety

Barnes

2003

Brit J Clinical Pharma

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the second of two papers which review issues concerning complementary medicines. The first reviewed the extent of use of complementary medicines, and issues related to the regulation and pharmaceutical quality of these products; the second considers evidence for the efficacy of several well-known complementary medicines, and discusses complementary-medicines pharmacovigilance. The term complementary medicines describes a range of pharmaceutical-type preparations, including herbal medicines, homoeopathic remedies, essential oils and dietary supplements, which mainly sit outside conventional medicine. The use of complementary medicines is a popular healthcare approach in the UK, and there are signs that the use of such products is continuing to increase. Patients and the public use complementary medicines for health maintenance, for the treatment or prevention of minor ailments, and also for serious, chronic illnesses. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to support the efficacy of certain herbal extracts and dietary supplements in particular conditions. However, many other preparations remain untested. Strictly speaking, evidence of efficacy (and safety) for herbal medicines should be considered to be extract specific. Pharmacovigilance for complementary medicines is in its infancy. Data are lacking in several areas relevant to safety. Standard pharmacovigilance tools have additional limitations when applied to investigating safety concerns with complementary medicines.

show abstract

Section: Homoeopathic Remediesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety

Barnes

2003

Brit J Clinical Pharma

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, 61 systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were included in qualitative synthesis (Altunç et al, ; Banerjee et al, ; Baranowsky et al, ; Barnes et al, ; Bellavite et al, ; Boehm et al, ; Bornhöft et al, ; Catalá‐López et al, ; Cooper & Relton, ; Cucherat et al, ; Davidson et al, ; De Silva et al, ; Ernst & Barnes, ; Ernst & Pittler, ; Ernst, ;Györik & Brutsche, ; Heirs & Dean, ; Holdcraft et al, ; Jonas et al, ; Kassab et al, ; Kleijnen et al, ; Levi et al, ; Linde al., ; Linde & Melchart, ; Linde et al, ; Long & Ernst, ; Loo & Tang, ; Mathie et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Mathie, ; McCarney et al, ; McCarney et al, ; Meehan et al, ; Milazzo et al, ; Morrison et al, ; Owen & Green, ; Peckham et al, ; Perry et al, ; Pilkington, Kirkwood, Rampes, Fisher, & Richardson, ; Pilkington, Kirkwood, Rampes, Fisher, & Richardson, ; Reid et al, ; Rostock & Saller, ; Subhranil & Munmun, ; Schneider et al, ; Shang et al, ; Smith, ; Sterne et al, ; Stevinson & Ernst, ; Struijs & Kerkhoffs, ; Terry et al, ; Thandar et al, ; van der Wouden et al, ; Vernon et al, ; Wiesenauer & Lüdtke, ). Data about the efficacy of homoeopathy are shown in Table .…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Twenty‐five reviews demonstrated that homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo (Altunç et al, ; Catalá‐López et al, ; Cooper & Relton, ; De Silva et al, ; Ernst, ; Ernst & Barnes, ; Ernst & Pittler, ; Györik & Brutsche, ; Heirs & Dean, ; Mathie et al, ; McCarney et al, ; Meehan et al, ; Milazzo et al, ; Reid et al, ; Subhranil & Munmun, ; Shang et al, ; Smith, ; Sterne et al, ; Thandar et al, ; van der Wouden et al, ; Vernon et al, ), twenty reviews did not come to a definite conclusion (Banerjee et al, ; Davidson et al, ; Ernst, ; Kleijnen et al, ; Linde et al, ; Long & Ernst, ; Loo & Tang, ; Mathie et al, ; Mathie, ; McCarney et al, ; Morrison et al, ; Owen & Green, ; Perry et al, ; Pilkington et al, ; Pilkington et al, ; Rostock & Saller, ; Stevinson & Ernst, ; Struijs & Kerkhoffs, ; Terry et al, ), and sixteen reviews concluded that homoeopathy has some effect beyond placebo (Baranowsky et al, ; Barnes et al, ; Bellavite et al, ; Boehm et al, ; Bornhöft et al, ; Cucherat et al, ; Holdcraft et al, ; Jonas et al, ; Kassab et al, ; Levi et al, ; Linde & Melchart, ; Linde et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Peckham et al, ; Schneider et al, ; Wiesenauer & Lüdtke, ).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…It has to be underscored that among RCTs comprised in included systematic reviews, some of them directly evaluated the efficacy of a specific homoeopathic remedy (Ernst & Pittler, ; Ernst, ; Kassab et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Schneider et al, ; Wiesenauer & Lüdtke, ), while others evaluated the efficacy of a homoeopathic intervention consisting in the administration of homoeopathic remedies, alone or with an interaction with the homeopath (e.g., for individualisation).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen reviews concluded that homoeopathy is more effective than placebo (Baranowsky et al, ; Barnes et al, ; Bellavite et al, ; Boehm et al, ; Bornhöft et al, ; Cucherat et al, ; Holdcraft et al, ; Jonas et al, ; Kassab et al, ; Levi et al, ; Linde & Melchart, ; Linde et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Peckham et al, ; Schneider et al, ; Wiesenauer & Lüdtke, ). Nine of them were rated as high quality (Baranowsky et al, ; Barnes et al, ; Boehm et al, ; Cucherat et al, ; Jonas et al, ; Kassab et al, ; Linde et al, ; Mathie et al, ; Peckham et al, ), while five appeared to be of fair quality (Bornhöft et al, ; Holdcraft et al, ; Levi et al, ; Linde & Melchart, ; Schneider et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Antonelli

Donelli²

2018

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review.Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way. K E Y W O R D S complementary and alternative medicine, homoeopathy, open-label placebo, patientphysician relationship, placebo effects, placebo treatment

show abstract

Homeopathy in Primary Care

Carlston¹

2003

Classical Homeopathy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety

Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Homeopathy in Primary Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About