Effectiveness of Homeopathy For Clinical Conditions - Evaluation of The Evidence PDF

Effectiveness of Homeopathy for
Clinical Conditions:
Evaluation of the Evidence
Overview Report
Prepared for the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee

by Optum
October 2013
EFFECTIVENESS OF HOMEOPATHY FOR CLINICAL CONDITIONS: OVERVIEW REPORT October 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7
1 Background ................................................................................................................ 9
1.1 The purpose of this overview ............................................................................................................................ 10
2 Objective .................................................................................................................. 12
3 Overview methodology ............................................................................................ 12
3.1 Research question development ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Description of conditions examined .................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2 Description of the interventions examined ....................................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Description of the comparators examined ........................................................................................ 14
3.1.4 Description of the outcomes examined ............................................................................................. 14
3.2 Literature searches ............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Study eligibility .................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.4 Data extraction .................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Critical appraisal ................................................................................................................................................ 17
3.6 Assessment of the body of evidence ................................................................................................................. 18
3.6.1 Evidence summaries .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.6.2 Development of evidence statements ............................................................................................... 19
3.7 Independent methodological review ................................................................................................................ 19
3.8 Changes from the research protocol ................................................................................................................. 20
4 Results of the overview ............................................................................................ 22

4.1 Results of the literature searches, data extraction and quality appraisal ......................................................... 22
4.2 Summary of systematic reviews that broadly examined the effectiveness of homeopathy across a range of
clinical conditions ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.1 Bellavite et al (2011) .......................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.2 Davidson et al (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.3 Simonart et al (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.4 Altunc et al (2007) .............................................................................................................................. 27
4.2.5 Cucherat et al (2000) ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.6 Ernst and Pittler (1998) ...................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.7 Linde and Melchart (1998) ................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.8 Linde et al (1997) ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Eye, ear and labyrinth disorders ........................................................................................................................ 29
4.4.1 Children with otitis media .................................................................................................................. 29
4.4.2 Glaucoma ........................................................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Gastrointestinal disorders ................................................................................................................................. 35
Prepared for the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee by Optum 2

4.5.1 Children with constipation ................................................................................................................. 35
4.5.2 Children with diarrhoea ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.5.3 Irritable bowel syndrome ................................................................................................................... 43
4.5.4 Postoperative ileus ............................................................................................................................ 45
4.5.5 Proctocolitis ....................................................................................................................................... 52
4.6 Genitourinary disorders..................................................................................................................................... 54
4.6.1 Nocturnal enuresis ............................................................................................................................. 54
4.6.2 Men with lower urinary tract symptoms ........................................................................................... 54
4.7 Infections and infestations ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.7.1 Amebiasis and giardiasis .................................................................................................................... 55
4.7.2 Cholera ............................................................................................................................................... 57
4.7.3 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) ............................................................................................... 59
4.7.4 Influenza-like illness ........................................................................................................................... 61
4.7.5 Malaria ............................................................................................................................................... 69
4.7.6 Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis .................................................................................................... 71
4.8 Injury, trauma and postoperative disorders ...................................................................................................... 73
4.8.1 Acute ankle sprains ............................................................................................................................ 73
4.8.2 Acute trauma ..................................................................................................................................... 75
4.8.3 Mild traumatic brain injury ................................................................................................................ 77
4.8.4 Postoperative pain-agitation syndrome............................................................................................. 79
4.9 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders ............................................................................................. 82
4.9.1 Ankylosing spondylitis ........................................................................................................................ 82
4.9.2 Chronic polyarthritis .......................................................................................................................... 84
4.9.3 Delayed-onset muscle soreness ......................................................................................................... 86
4.9.4 Fibromyalgia ...................................................................................................................................... 92
4.9.5 Knee joint haematoma..................................................................................................................... 104
4.9.6 Osteoarthritis ................................................................................................................................... 106
4.9.7 Rheumatoid arthritis ........................................................................................................................ 114
4.10 Neurological .................................................................................................................................................... 119
4.10.1 Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke ........................................................................... 119
4.10.2 Stroke ............................................................................................................................................... 121
4.10.3 Migraine and headache ................................................................................................................... 123
4.11 Pregnancy and childbirth ................................................................................................................................. 131
4.11.1 Dystocia ........................................................................................................................................... 131
4.11.2 Induction of labour or reducing duration of labour ......................................................................... 133
4.12 Psychiatric and behavioural disorders ............................................................................................................. 136
4.12.1 Children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder .................................................................... 136

4.12.2 Anxiety or stress-related conditions ................................................................................................ 145
4.12.3 Borderline personality disorder ....................................................................................................... 152
4.12.4 Dementia ......................................................................................................................................... 152
4.12.5 Depression ....................................................................................................................................... 153
4.12.6 Heroin addiction .............................................................................................................................. 156
4.13 Reproductive system and breast disorders ..................................................................................................... 158
4.13.1 Premenstrual syndrome .................................................................................................................. 158
4.13.2 Lactation in postpartum women who elect not to breastfeed ........................................................ 162
4.14 Respiratory and allergic ................................................................................................................................... 164
4.14.1 Adenoid vegetation in children ........................................................................................................ 164
4.14.2 Allergic rhinitis ................................................................................................................................. 167
4.14.3 Asthma ............................................................................................................................................. 179
4.14.4 Bronchitis ......................................................................................................................................... 193
4.14.5 Cough ............................................................................................................................................... 195
4.14.6 Oral lichen planus ............................................................................................................................ 197
4.14.7 Non-allergic rhinitis .......................................................................................................................... 199
4.14.8 Sinusitis ............................................................................................................................................ 203
4.14.9 Upper respiratory tract infection ..................................................................................................... 207
4.15 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders .......................................................................................................... 214
4.15.1 Acne vulgaris .................................................................................................................................... 214
4.15.2 Boils and pyoderma ......................................................................................................................... 216
4.15.3 Bruising ............................................................................................................................................ 218
4.15.4 Second and third degree burns ........................................................................................................ 220
4.15.5 Eczema ............................................................................................................................................. 222
4.15.6 Seborrhoeic dermatitis .................................................................................................................... 226
4.15.7 Ulcers ............................................................................................................................................... 228
4.15.8 Uraemic pruritis ............................................................................................................................... 231
4.15.9 Warts ............................................................................................................................................... 233
4.16 Sleep disorders and fatigue ............................................................................................................................. 238
4.16.1 Chronic fatigue syndrome ................................................................................................................ 238
4.16.2 Sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances ........................................................................................... 245
4.17 Adverse effects of cancer treatments ............................................................................................................. 255
4.17.1 Adverse effects of venous cannulation ............................................................................................ 255
4.17.2 Chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting ................................................................................... 257
4.17.3 Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis .................................................................................................. 259
4.17.4 Hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer..................................................................... 265
4.17.5 Radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy .............................................. 271

4.18 Pain .................................................................................................................................................................. 275
4.18.1 Chronic facial pain ............................................................................................................................ 275
4.18.2 Lower back pain ............................................................................................................................... 276
4.18.3 Pain in dental practice ..................................................................................................................... 278
4.18.4 Pain following orthopaedic surgery ................................................................................................. 282
5 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 284

5.1 Summary of main results ................................................................................................................................. 284
5.2 Overall completeness and quality of evidence ................................................................................................ 284
5.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................... 285
5.4 Research Gaps ................................................................................................................................................. 287
6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 288

7 References ............................................................................................................. 289
7.1 References – Systematic Reviews .................................................................................................................... 289
7.1.1 Included reviews .............................................................................................................................. 289
7.1.2 Excluded reviews ............................................................................................................................. 291
7.1.3 Studies not published in English ...................................................................................................... 299
7.2 References – Other .......................................................................................................................................... 300
Appendix A – Data extraction and quality assessment forms
Appendix B – AMSTAR Measurement Toolkit
Appendix C – Criteria for developing evidence statements

List of Abbreviations
ADHD Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

CAM Complementary and alternative medicine
CFS Chronic fatigue syndrome
CI Confidence interval
DOMS Delayed-onset muscle soreness
EMBASE Excerpta Medica Database
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
GRECHO Groupe de Rechereche et d’Essais Cliniques en Homeopathie
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HTA Health Technology Assessment
HWC Homeopathy Working Committee
LOC Level of confidence
MDQ Menstrual Distress Questionnaire
NCC-WCH National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NHS National Health Service
NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
OA Osteoarthritis
PICO Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome
PMS Premenstrual syndrome
RCT Randomised controlled trial
RR Relative risk
SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
URTI Upper respiratory tract infection
WHO World Health Organization
WMD Weighted mean difference

Executive Summary
Introduction
Homeopathy is a 200 year-old form of alternative medicine. The discipline is underpinned by the
principle of similitude (‘like cures like’); meaning substances that cause symptoms in a healthy person
have the ability to treat an ill person with the same symptoms (when administered in homeopathic
potencies). Homeopathy is also based on the belief that molecules in highly diluted substances retain
a ‘memory’ of the original substance. Specifically, homeopathic remedies are repeatedly diluted and
agitated in a process known as ‘potentisation’ or ‘dynamisation’.
Homeopathy is included in numerous publicly funded health care systems around the world. It is
therefore essential that clinical evidence is regularly reviewed and that the outcomes of these
reviews are provided in a format that can (i) facilitate decision-making for policy makers, and (ii)
assist the community in making informed decisions about their healthcare. In Australia, the National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has a statutory responsibility to provide advice on
health matters and has identified “claiming benefits for human health not based on evidence” as a
major health issue. There have been conflicting reports on the effectiveness of homeopathy;
therefore, NHMRC decided to review the literature addressing the effectiveness of homeopathy for
any clinical condition.
Objective
The objective of this review is to summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the
effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans.
Methodology
The methodology used to conduct the review was based on that described in Chapter 22 of the
Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Literature searches were performed in
EMBASE.com (EMBASE and Medline databases), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and PubMed Health
to identify all relevant systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials of homeopathy in humans. From
each included systematic review, data was extracted from the individual studies included in the
review by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. In addition, the quality of each
included systematic review was assessed using the AMSTAR measurement tool by a single reviewer
and checked by a second reviewer. The overall conclusion of the systematic review authors was also
recorded. The evidence for each clinical condition was summarised and evidence statements were
formulated after consultation and agreement with the Homeopathy Working Committee (HWC) of
the NHMRC.
Results
A total of 57 systematic reviews were identified that met the criteria for inclusion within this
Overview Report. The relevant reviews tended to have one of three main objectives (i) to review a
variety of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), including homeopathy, for the
treatment of a particular clinical condition or specific clinical area, (ii) to review homeopathy for the
treatment of one clinical condition, or (iii) to review homeopathy for the treatment of a variety of
clinical conditions. The reviews examined the evidence for a total of 68 clinical conditions and
included seven clinical conditions for which no relevant primary studies were identified. Of the
remaining 61 clinical conditions, the total number of participants included in the trial(s) was less than
150 for 36 of the clinical conditions examined. The total number of participants included in the

trial(s) was between 150 and 499 for 15 clinical conditions. The evidence base for 10 clinical
conditions collectively comprised 500 or more participants. There were 31 clinical conditions for
which only one Level II or Level III-2 study was identified.
In rating the body of evidence, the overall size, quality and precision of the evidence was considered
and a level of confidence (LOC) was assigned to the body of evidence for each clinical condition.
Overall, there was no condition for which there was a high LOC in the body of evidence. One
condition was associated with a moderate LOC and four conditions were associated with a moderate-
low LOC. Fifty-six clinical conditions were associated with a low or very low LOC (14 conditions with a
low LOC; 11 conditions with a low-very low LOC; 31 conditions with a very low LOC). The remaining
seven clinical conditions could not be assigned a LOC as there were no relevant primary studies
identified.
Discussion
The quality and comprehensiveness of the systematic reviews included in this Overview Report were
limited by the inclusion of many poorly designed, conducted and reported primary studies.
Importantly, most of the primary studies were small in size and likely to be insufficiently powered to
detect a statistically significant outcome. Also, this Overview Report was reliant upon the reporting
within the included systematic reviews, which was not always high quality. In addition, several
systematic reviews did not provide specific conclusions relating to each clinical condition included in
the review.
Conclusion
There is a paucity of good-quality studies of sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of
homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans. The available evidence is not
compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the
reported clinical conditions in humans.

1 Background
Homeopathy is a form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is commonly used to
treat or manage a wide variety of clinical conditions. Developed by Samuel Christian Hahnemann in
the late 18th century, homeopathy is founded on two fundamental principles: similitude (‘like cures
like’) and potentisation (or ‘dynamisation’), whereby a substance is repeatedly diluted and agitated
(‘succussion’). The principle of similitude is known as ‘similia similibus curantur’ and is based on the
hypothesis that a substance that causes certain symptom(s) in a healthy person (usually at high
doses) can be used to treat those symptoms in a person who is ill (at small doses). Homeopathic
medicines are prepared by serial dilution in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on
an elastic body, called ‘succussion’. Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the
medicine’s potency due to a transfer of energy, meaning that higher diluted preparations are
considered to be more active. The serial dilution of various animal, plant, mineral or synthetic
substances to create a homeopathic remedy often occurs to a point at which it is highly unlikely that
a single molecule of the original substance remains (Ernst and Barnes, 1998). The principle of
potentisation is based on the belief that even though it is highly diluted, the solvent retains a
‘memory’ of the original substance.
Globally, homeopathy is one of the most extensively used forms of CAM (Linde et al, 1997) and is
included in numerous publicly funded health care systems around the world. In Australia, herbal
products, vitamins, minerals and nutritional supplements, some aromatherapy products and certain
homeopathic products are regulated as complementary medicines under the Therapeutic Goods Act
1989 by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Homoeopathic preparations are currently
exempt from inclusion on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) prior to supply,
providing they contain ingredients more dilute than a 1,000 fold dilution of a mother tincture, do not
contain substances of human origin or certain animal parts, and do not make therapeutic claims that
refer to serious conditions or diseases.
It is estimated that Australians spent US $7.3 million dollars on homeopathic medicines in 2008
(WHO, 2009). Despite its widespread use, homeopathy remains highly controversial due to a large
discordance between its underlying principles and those of biomedical science (Davidson et al, 2011).
Still, homeopathy is often adopted as a treatment strategy, particularly by patients with difficult-to-
treat conditions who are frustrated with conventional therapeutic options or their side effects.
Given the prevalence of its use, there is a strong incentive for policy makers and consumers to
understand the existing evidence base for homeopathy but consensus across various government
reports and systematic reviews has not been reached. For example, in 2009 the UK House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee released a report entitled Evidence Check 2:
Homeopathy, in which they argued “there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of
evidence showing that it is not efficacious” and surmised that “systematic reviews and meta-analyses
conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebo” (House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2009). Overall, the report recommended that the
National Health Service (NHS) stop funding homeopathy. However, the report has been criticised for
inaccurately representing the findings of several key systematic reviews and overstating the findings
of reviews or meta-analyses that found no effect for homeopathy (British Homeopathic Association,
2010).

In contrast to the findings of the UK report, a Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report in
Homeopathy (published in English in February, 2012) concluded that homeopathy is a “valuable
addition to the conventional medical landscape” (Bornhöft and Matthiessen, 2012). However, recent
reviews of the Swiss report have suggested that it is “scientifically, logically and ethically flawed”,
“misinterprets studies previously exposed as weak” and “attempts to discredit randomised
controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence” (Shaw, 2012).
In view of the inconsistency among published reviews, as well as the fact that neither of the above
reviews addressed homeopathy in the Australian context, the National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC) recognised that an updated systematic review of systematic reviews (an overview)
on this topic was needed to critically appraise and summarise the evidence on homeopathy. As part
of this decision, NHMRC established the Homeopathy Working Committee (HWC), which comprises
experts in evidence-based medicine and CAM. NHMRC contracted Health Technology Analysts Pty
Ltd (the evidence reviewer, trading as Optum) to conduct an overview that would examine the
effectiveness of homeopathy for the specific treatment of any clinical condition in humans, including
treating the clinical side effects of another treatment or intervention. NHMRC is also evaluating and
considering published guidelines, other government reports and evidence submitted to the NHMRC.
This Overview Report provides a comprehensive description of the methods used to assess the
evidence and includes a summary of the findings of the systematic review(s) and an evidence
statement for each clinical condition.
1.1 The purpose of this overview

It is important that accurate information regarding the effectiveness of available healthcare options
is provided to the community so they can make informed decisions underpinned by the best
available evidence. A major function of NHMRC under the National Health and Medical Research
Council Act 1992 is to inquire into and advise the community on matters relating to the improvement
of health and treatment of disease (section 7(1)(a)). A recurring theme in the National Health and
Medical Research Council Strategic Plan 2013-2015 is the importance of health advice and care that
is evidence-based.
The findings of this homeopathy review will inform the development of an NHMRC Information
Paper and Position Statement on homeopathy which will be made available to the Australian
community to assist people in making informed health care choices (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Flow chart outlining the purpose of the Overview Report in the context of the broader project

2 Objective
The objective of this overview is to summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the
effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans.
In considering the effectiveness of homeopathy for this review, the HWC determined the following
uses are also within scope (i) homeopathy used to treat the side effects of another
treatment/intervention; and (ii) homeopathy used in conjunction with another
treatment/intervention, where the design of the study does not confound the results (i.e. where the
specific effect of homeopathy can be determined). For example, studies that examined homeopathy
plus other intervention versus other intervention were included. The use of homeopathy as a
preventative/prophylactic intervention was considered out of scope. In addition, the report did not
include studies that exclusively examined safety or homeopathic aggravations, defined as a
temporary worsening of existing symptoms following the administration of a homeopathic remedy
(Grabia and Ernst, 2003); however safety results reported in otherwise included studies were
presented in the report.
3 Overview methodology
Prior to conducting the evidence evaluation of the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of
any clinical condition in humans, a research protocol was developed through active consultation
between the members of the HWC and the evidence review team. This research protocol specified
the methodology to be used in the review and was approved by NHMRC before the review
commenced. The methods used were derived from Chapter 22 of the Cochrane Handbook of
Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which is designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic
reviews into a single document. This overview does not aim to repeat the searches of the systematic
reviews, or repeat the assessments of eligibility or risk of bias conducted by the included systematic
reviews.
This section outlines:
 The primary clinical research question used to define the systematic evidence review
 The literature search strategies used to identify studies relevant to the primary clinical
research question
 The study eligibility criteria used to determine the inclusion or exclusion of studies for this
overview
 A description of the quality assessment and critical appraisal process and the data extraction
forms used to capture information from the systematic reviews
 A description of the process used to assess the body of evidence relative to the primary
clinical research question, including the development of evidence summaries and evidence
statements
 A brief description of how comments from the independent methodological review have
been addressed

3.1 Research question development

The clinical research question for the overview was structured and scoped according to the PICO
criteria (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes). Use of the PICO framework facilitates the
systematic review process as it improves conceptual clarity of the clinical problem, allows more
complex search strategies, results in more precise search results, and allows evidence to be selected
appropriately.
One primary clinical research question was developed for the overview:
1. For patients with a specific clinical condition, is homeopathy an effective treatment,
compared with no homeopathy/other treatments?
The agreed PICO criteria for the primary clinical research question are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1 PICO criteria for the primary clinical research question developed for the overview
For patients with a specific clinical condition, is homeopathy an effective treatment, compared with no
homeopathy/other treatments?
Population Intervention Comparator Outcomes Other systematic review

considerations
People with any clinical (1) Homeopathy for  No homeopathy Any clinical Limits:
condition the treatment of  Standard or usual outcome  Search period: January 1997-
any clinical care 3 January 2013
condition a
Stratified by:  Any other active Adverse events  Full length publications only
• Age (adults; children (2) Homeopathy for treatment  English only publicationsb
or adolescents) the treatment of
• Indigenous/non- clinical side effects
indigenous of another
treatment or
intervention
(3) Homeopathy
used in conjunction
with another
intervention, where
the specific effects
of homeopathy can
be determined
Stratified by
practitioner
prescribed and self-
prescribed where
applicable
a
Adverse events were only considered if they were included within a systematic review that also considered
effectiveness.
b
Studies were excluded if they were not published in the English language. Non-English publications that otherwise
fulfilled the eligibility criteria were brought to the attention of the HWC, noted and excluded.
3.1.1 Description of conditions examined

The HWC agreed that a ‘clinical condition’ is defined as a stage in the history of a pathologic
condition that begins with anatomic or physiologic changes that are sufficient to produce
recognisable signs and/or symptoms of a disease. For the purpose of this overview, ‘any clinical
condition’ also included the clinical side effects of another treatment or intervention. The literature
search was not limited by population, so all potentially relevant clinical conditions could be

identified. Where there was ambiguity about what constitutes a clinical condition, this was clarified
through consultation with the HWC.
To maximise the generalisability and applicability of the review findings, the evidence evaluation
included any clinical condition for which there was at least one systematic review that searched for
prospectively designed and controlled studies conducted in humans.
3.1.2 Description of the interventions examined

For the purposes of this overview, the HWC agreed that ‘homeopathy’ is defined as an alternative
medical system based on two central hypotheses (‘similitude’ and ‘potentisation’), as described by
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM, National Institutes of
Health, United States). There are two major homeopathic approaches to treatment, both of which
were included for this review. The traditional approach is known as individualised homeopathy in
which a single homeopathic medicine is selected and prescribed on the basis of all of a patient’s
symptoms. Another approach is clinical homeopathy in which one or more homeopathic medicines
are used for standard clinical situations or conventional diagnoses and are prescribed based on the
presenting disease state rather than the totality of symptoms. It is not uncommon for different
people with the same condition to receive different treatments.
Homeopathic products are derived from substances that come from plants, minerals, or animals and
can come in different oral (by mouth) or topical (on the skin) forms. Remedies are often formulated
as sugar (soft) pellets to be placed under the tongue; but may also be in other forms, such as hard
tablets, liquids, ointments, sprays and creams. The homeopathic products are prescribed in either
low dilutions, where the original substance is physically present, or in high dilutions, in which
material quantities of the original substance are unlikely to be present.
3.1.3 Description of the comparators examined

The comparators for this evidence evaluation are no homeopathy, standard or usual care, or any
other active treatment. Where active comparators were reported, their appropriateness was not
assessed by the evidence reviewer. The appropriateness of active comparators was also generally not
reported or commented on in the included systematic reviews.
3.1.4 Description of the outcomes examined

Due to the broad nature of the overview and the inclusion of any clinical condition, the review was
not limited to any particular outcome provided that the outcome was related to the effectiveness of
homeopathy.The HWC agreed that ‘effectiveness’ is defined as a statistically significant improvement
in a clinically relevant outcome. Clinically relevant outcomes varied depending on the clinical
condition being considered. The literature search was not limited by outcome, so all potentially
relevant outcomes could be identified.
3.2 Literature searches

A systematic literature search was conducted for the primary clinical research question. According to
the NHMRC standards for evidence review, Level I evidence refers to a systematic review of Level II
studies and is considered to be the highest level of evidence for intervention and screening
intervention questions. Level II evidence refers to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Table 2). The
current systematic review, however, is intended to identify all systematic reviews of prospectively
designed and controlled studies (i.e. Level II, Level III-1 and some types of Level III-2 studies). Thus,

for the purposes of this review, systematic reviews were eligible if they contained one or more of the
following study types: RCT, pseudo-randomised controlled trial, non-randomised controlled trial or
prospective cohort study. Furthermore, if a systematic review identified no studies for a particular
clinical condition, this information was included in the evidence review.
Table 2 NHMRC levels of evidence hierarchy

b
Level Intervention
a
I A systematic review of Level II studies
II A randomised controlled trial
III-1 A pseudo-randomised controlled trial

(i.e. alternate allocation or some other method)
III-2 A comparative study with concurrent controls:

 Non-randomised, experimental trialc
 Cohort study
 Case-control study
 Interrupted time series with a control group
III-3 A comparative study without concurrent controls:

 Historical control study
 Two or more single arm studyd
 Interrupted time series without a parallel control group
IV Case series with either post-test or pre-test/post-test outcomes

Source: Merlin T et al (2009)
a
A systematic review will only be assigned a level of evidence as high as the studies it contains, excepting where those
studies are of Level II evidence. Systematic reviews of Level II evidence provide more data than the individual studies
and any meta-analyses will increase the precision of the overall results, reducing the likelihood that the results are
affected by chance. Systematic reviews of lower level evidence present results of likely poor internal validity and thus
are rated on the likelihood that the results have been affected by bias, rather than whether the systematic review itself
is of good quality. Systematic review quality should be assessed separately. A systematic review should consist of at least
two studies. In systematic reviews that include different study designs, the overall level of evidence should relate to
each individual outcome/result, as different studies (and study designs) might contribute to each different outcome.
b
Definitions of these study designs are provided on pages 7–8 of the NHMRC toolkit, How to use the evidence:
assessment and application of scientific evidence (NHMRC 2000).
c
This also includes controlled before-and-after (pre-test/post-test) studies, as well as indirect comparisons (i.e. utilise A
vs. B and B vs. C, to determine A vs. C).
d
Comparing single arm studies i.e. case series from two studies. This would also include unadjusted indirect
comparisons (i.e. utilise A vs. B and B vs. C, to determine A vs. C but where there is no statistical adjustment for B).
The literature search strategies used to identify publications relevant to the primary clinical research
question are shown in Table 3. The literature searches were conducted using EMBASE.com (which
searches EMBASE and Medline databases concurrently), the Cochrane Library, PubMed and PubMed
Health. After reviewing the initially retrieved citations, a manual search of the reference lists of
included papers was also performed to identify other potential reviews that may have met the
criteria for inclusion in this overview, but were missed by the initial search strategy.

Table 3 Literature search strategy for the systematic review of systematic reviews
Database # Search terms Citations Total number
retrieved of citations
Medline and EMBASE #1 homeop* OR homoeop* OR homöop* OR omeop* 7846 436

(using EMBASE.com OR 'homeopathy'/exp
a
interface)
#2 'meta analysis'/exp OR 'meta analysis' OR 172,931
'systematic review'/exp OR 'systematic review' OR
Search date:
'pooled analysis' OR ('review'/exp OR 'review' AND
3 January 2013 (systemat* OR pool*))
#3 #1 AND #2 436
PubMed #1 ((review OR meta-analysis[Publication Type]) OR 711 711

(systematic review OR meta analysis OR pooled
Search date: analysis[Title/Abstract])) AND (homeopath* OR
3 January 2013 homoeopath*[Title/Abstract]
PubMed Health #1 homeopath* OR homoeopath* 169 169
Search date:
10 January 2013
Cochrane Library #1 Title/abstract/keyword: homeop* or homoeop* 50 50

(systematic reviews,
other reviews and
health technology
assessments)
Search date:
3 January 2013
Citations identified through manual check of reference lists 1 1
Total number of citations identified 1367

a
Records are included in EMBASE.com as soon as the citation and abstract is available from the publisher. Although the
full indexing is not yet available, In-Process records are enriched with index terms automatically generated from title and
abstract. In some cases In-Process records themselves replace Articles in Press.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

The review of evidence relating to the effectiveness of homeopathy did not specifically search for, or
limit, the retrieval of articles to studies that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
However, the evidence reviewers did not identify any papers that addressed these populations for
specific consideration by the HWC.
The evidence reviewer notes that no relevant socioeconomic literature pertaining to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples was identified in the literature searches for the systematic evidence
review.
3.3 Study eligibility

The inclusion of studies identified through the literature search for the primary clinical research
question was based on whether or not the pre-specified elements of the PICO criteria were met. All
citations identified in the literature searches described in Table 3 were assessed by one reviewer
based on information in the publication title and, where available, the abstract. Relevant publications
were retrieved and reviewed in full text before a final decision was made on their inclusion or
exclusion for the systematic review.

Consistent with the PICO criteria for the systematic review (Table 1), the following a priori exclusion
criteria were applied to the citations retrieved through the literature search:
 Duplicate citation
 Wrong publication type. Studies that were not systematic reviews or meta-analyses were
excluded. Editorials, comments, book chapters, animal studies, correspondence, and news
items were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they were not reported in full (e.g.
research or systematic review protocols, conference proceedings, articles published in
abstract form)
 Wrong intervention. Studies that did not investigate the effect of homeopathy were excluded
 Wrong outcomes. Studies that did not include outcomes relevant to the primary research
question were excluded
 Study not published in the English language
3.4 Data extraction

Standardised data extraction forms and evidence summary tables were used to capture information
relevant to the systematic review of the effectiveness of homeopathy in accordance with NHMRC
standards (NHMRC, 2007). Extracted information included:
 General study details (citation, study design, evidence level, country and setting)
 Affiliations/sources of funds for each of the included studies
 Internal and external validity considerations
 Participant details, including key demographic characteristics
 Primary, secondary and other study outcome results
The data were extracted by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction was
completed only for systematic reviews that received a ‘yes’ rating for questions 3 and 7 of the
AMSTAR measurement tool (Shea et al, 2007). Systematic reviews that received a ‘yes’ rating in
question 3 but did not identify any included studies and therefore could not have answered yes to
question 7 were also included. Data extraction forms for all included studies are presented in
Appendix A.
3.5 Critical appraisal

Systematic reviews identified for inclusion from the literature search were critically appraised and
evaluated based on the quality assessment questions included in the AMSTAR measurement tool kit,
see Appendix B (Shea et al, 2007). The quality assessment was performed by a single reviewer and
checked by a second reviewer. The quality assessment forms for the included reviews are presented
in Appendix A.
The systematic reviews were assigned scores (maximum of 11/11) based on the AMSTAR
measurement toolkit. When one or more of the AMSTAR items were not applicable to a particular
systematic review, the denominator was reduced to reflect the number of relevant criteria. For
example, if the systematic review did not conduct a meta-analysis the item pertaining to the

appropriate pooling of results was not applicable and the systematic review was given a score out of
10. Similarly, if a systematic review did not identify any primary studies for the clinical condition of
interest the systematic review was given a score out of 5. For the purposes of the evidence
statements, those reviews that identified primary studies were also assigned a quality rating (poor,
medium, good) based on the AMSTAR score. There are no established thresholds for assigning
descriptive quality ratings; however, for the purposes of this Overview Report, a score of 5 or less
was considered ‘poor’, 6-8 ‘medium’ and 9+ was considered a ‘good’ quality systematic review. The
same thresholds were applied regardless of whether the denominator was 10 or 11.
3.6 Assessment of the body of evidence

3.6.1 Evidence summaries
Evidence summaries for each clinical condition included in this overview were developed by the
evidence reviewer to provide details of the evidence base and outcomes, a discussion of the
strengths and limitations of the included studies, the size of the studies, and a description of the
totality of the evidence. Evidence summaries for some clinical conditions feature commentary in
italicized text under the heading “Reviewer Comments”. This aimed to highlight limitations of the
body of evidence as noted by the evidence reviewer. For example, to note discrepancies between
the quality score of a primary study as reported in different systematic reviews, to highlight studies
that were carried out by the same research group, or to emphasise circumstances where a
systematic review drew their overall conclusion based on lower levels of evidence than those
considered in the Overview Report.
The following information was extracted from the studies included in each review into an evidence
summary table: intervention/comparator treatment regimens, length of follow up, total sample size,
outcomes examined, results, the quality of the primary study as reported in the systematic review,
and overall conclusion of the authors. Issues that were faced by the evidence reviewer with the
systematic reviews sourced include:
 Information on primary outcomes of the primary studies was often not reported in the
systematic reviews
 Difficulty in ascertaining if different systematic reviews were reporting on the same outcome
of a primary study
 It was unclear from many systematic reviews if the reported sample size of a primary study
was the number of people randomised or the number of people who completed the study.
Thus, different systematic reviews reported different sample sizes for the same primary
study
 Variability in the reported quality of a primary study between systematic reviews.

Consequently, the evidence summary tables are presented according to the included systematic
review and not by study outcomes.
Effect sizes and confidence intervals for all primary outcomes were provided in the evidence
summary tables where possible. However, this was often not available and thus all reported
outcomes are presented in this Overview Report. If the author of the systematic review stated that a
statistically significant difference was found between the intervention and comparator, the relevant

box in the ‘results as reported in the systematic review’ column was shaded. This approach was
adopted irrespective of the reporting of a p-value (<0.05). For the purposes of this Overview Report,
“effectiveness” was defined as a statistically significant improvement in a clinically relevant outcome.
The clinical significance (or the practical importance) of an outcome was not assessed by the
evidence reviewer.
The quality of the included studies was also not assessed by the evidence reviewer as the primary
studies were not retrieved. The methodological quality of the primary studies that are reported in
the Overview Report are based on the scores assigned by the authors of the systematic reviews. The
majority of systematic reviewers that assessed the quality of the included studies used the Jadad
scoring system to rate quality. Further information about the classification of primary studies is
provided in Appendix C.
Ideally, the evidence reviewer would have focused on a ‘key’ systematic review in each evidence
summary. In some therapeutic areas, this approach is possible due to large evidence bases and
rigorous meta-analyses. However, it was difficult to adopt that approach in this overview, as the
systematic reviews were often of poor methodological quality, or reporting from poorly conducted
trials.
3.6.2 Development of evidence statements

Evidence statements about the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for each clinical
condition were formulated by the evidence reviewer in consultation with the HWC. The evidence
statements aim to advise members of the community about the effectiveness of homeopathy, to
enable them to make informed decisions about their health care. The final wording of each evidence
statement was approved by the HWC.
To ensure a consistent approach across all clinical conditions, a standard format for evidence
statements was developed comprising three elements: (i) a description of the body of evidence; (ii) a
level of confidence (LOC) rating for the body of evidence; (iii) a concluding statement that described
the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for a particular condition, compared with either
placebo or other treatment(s). The full criteria for the development of evidence statements are
outlined in Appendix C.
The formulation of recommendations was not within the scope of this overview.
3.7 Independent methodological review

The first draft of the Overview Report and Appendix A were reviewed by an independent referee (the
methodological reviewer) to confirm that an appropriate and rigorous approach had been taken.
Specifically, the methodological reviewers examined whether (i) the review followed the approach
documented in the research protocol; (ii) the inclusion/exclusion criteria used for the selection of
studies were clearly described and applied appropriately; (iii) the critical appraisal process was clearly
described and applied appropriately; and (iv) the process by which the draft evidence statements
were derived, including how the evidence was synthesised and interpreted, was appropriate and
clear.
The methodological reviewer provided five key points and numerous specific recommendations that
were intended to improve the transparency of the methods and the interpretation of the findings.

The findings of the methodological review were discussed at a meeting of the HWC on 11 July 2013.
The Overview Report and Appendix A were modified in response to the recommendations of the
methodological reviewer and additional appendixes, Appendix B and Appendix C, were added to the
Overview Report. The evidence statements were also refined to reflect suggestions in the
methodological review.
The methodological reviewer was provided with an updated version of the Overview Report and a
response to their initial comments and concerns. The methodological reviewer then examined the
changes and provided final comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the Overview
Report on 9 September 2013.
3.8 Changes from the research protocol

During the evaluation of the evidence, several changes from the research protocol approved by
NHMRC in December 2012 were made as follows:
 The literature search was conducted on 3 January 2013, and not December 2012 as reported
in the research protocol. Consequently, articles published or otherwise made available after
3 January 2013 were not included in the evaluation of the evidence.
 Studies that were identified during the systematic review of Level I evidence were not
assessed according to the NHMRC dimensions of evidence as planned in the research
protocol. These dimensions were originally developed for use in assessing primary studies. It
became apparent during the evidence review that they would not be appropriate for
overviews, as study-level data was often incompletely reported in the systematic reviews
(e.g. primary outcomes were often not specified, effect estimates and confidence intervals
were rarely reported).
 Appendix A in the protocol (Table 1 in the Overview Report) has been updated. The research
question now reflects the fact that data pertaining to adverse events were included in the
overview if such information was found in a systematic review that also considered
effectiveness. The other changes to the table were not significant in terms of content; the
changes were made in order to facilitate a clearer understanding of the research question
for the reader.
 The research protocol stated that “for each condition and outcome a summary of the
identified evidence will be presented. This will include an evidence table with the details of
the evidence and a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the included studies, the
powering of the studies and a description of the totality of the evidence”. Additionally, the
research protocol stated that the results will be presented by outcome.
However, the included systematic reviews presented a wide array of outcomes which were
often reported differently between systematic reviews. This made it difficult to ascertain
whether outcomes that were reported differently between two or more systematic reviews
were, in fact, referring to the same results. Consequently, the evidence summary tables
have been presented according to systematic review and not by outcome. Each primary
study that was identified by each systematic review is listed with the study details, meaning
that some trials are listed numerous times within one evidence table. This change was
necessitated due to incomplete reporting; it was very rare that one systematic review

reported all of the outcomes, results, and patient characteristics of an included study. Thus,
all primary trial data is presented as it was reported in the systematic reviews.
 The research protocol stated that “the full quality checklist developed for this project,
including a key to the three quality ratings (good, moderate, poor) is shown in Appendix C
(of the research protocol)”. This key was not provided in Appendix C of the protocol but is
described in Section 3.6.2 of this Overview Report.
 The research protocol described a standard sentence format for the development of
evidence statements. However, a different, new framework was developed by the evidence
reviewer in conjunction with the HWC due to the incomplete reporting of the systematic
reviews and the difficulty in ascertaining which results were the primary outcomes. Details
of the new framework are provided in Section 3.6.2 of this Overview Report.
 The research protocol stated that a ‘Process Report’ would accompany the Overview Report
and comprise most of the methodology. It was later decided by NHMRC that this
information should be read in conjunction with the evidence evaluation and was thus
integrated into the Overview Report.
 In Appendix A of the research protocol, footnote ‘a’ to the table states that “preference will
be given to patient-relevant over surrogate outcomes”. This was subsequently deleted as it
was not applicable to this evidence evaluation.

4 Results of the overview
4.1 Results of the literature searches, data extraction and

quality appraisal
A total of 1367 citations were identified by the evidence reviewer using the search strategy described
in Section 3.2. An assessment of the 1367 titles and abstracts resulted in 183 potentially relevant
studies that were published in English and assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy for the
treatment of patients with a specific clinical condition, compared with no homeopathy/other
treatments. Ten studies were brought to the attention of the HWC as they were not published in the
English language. These studies were noted by the HWC and excluded. The full citation details for
those publications are provided in Section 7.1.3. The application of the exclusion criteria, outlined in
Section 3.3, to citations identified through the systematic literature searches is shown in Table 4.
Of the 183 studies that were reviewed in full text, 121 were excluded and are documented, with
their reason for exclusion, in Section 7.1.2. Consequently, 60 systematic reviews were identified that
fulfilled the initial inclusion criteria (Table 4).
Table 4 Summary of citations retrieved

Literature search for systematic reviews Total number of citations
Total number of citations identified 1367
Citations excluded after title/abstract review:

Duplicate citation 374
Wrong study type 729
Wrong intervention 39
Wrong outcomes 32
Not in English 10
Number of studies reviewed in full text 183

a
Studies excluded after full text review
Wrong study type 71
Wrong intervention 30
Wrong outcomes 10
Superseded publication 12
Final number of eligible reviews 60

a
Studies excluded after full text review are documented, with their reasons for exclusion in Section 7.1.2
The quality of each of these 60 systematic reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR measurement
toolkit (Appendix A). Three studies were subsequently excluded as they did not assess the quality of
the included studies (question 7 of the AMSTAR measurement tool) and are listed in Table 5. This
resulted in a final total of 57 systematic reviews that were appraised in this Overview Report, with
full citation details presented in Section 7.1.1. Sources of funding and the declared interests of the
authors in each included review are detailed in the corresponding data extraction form for the study
(Appendix A).

a
Table 5 Citation details for excluded studies that failed to meet ‘essential’ quality criteria
Jorm AF, Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Parslow RA, Rodgers B, Blewitt KA (2004) Effectiveness of complementary and self-
help treatments for anxiety disorders. Med J Aust 181(7 SUPPL.):S29-S46.
Mathie RT (2003) The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homeopathy 92:84-
91.
Seidl MM, Stewart DE (1998) Alternative treatments for menopausal symptoms. Systematic review of scientific and lay
literature. Can Fam Physician 44:1299-308.
a
Studies that were excluded as they received a ‘no’ rating for questions 3 or 7 of the AMSTAR measurement tool
A total of 68 specific clinical conditions were assessed in the systematic reviews included in this
overview and for the purposes of this report, were grouped into 15 broad therapeutic areas as
shown in Table 6.
Table 6 List of clinical conditions covered by the included systematic reviews

Therapeutic area Clinical conditions Number of Number of Number of
systematic unique studies participants
reviews
Eye, ear and Children with otitis media 3 4 365

labyrinth
disorders Glaucoma 1 0 0
Gastrointestinal Children with constipation 2 0 0

disorders
Children with diarrhoea 4 4 544
Irritable bowel syndrome 2 1 23
Postoperative ileus 3 5 1095
Proctocolitis 1 1 20
Genitourinary Nocturnal enuresis 1 0 0

disorders
Men with lower urinary tract 1 0 0
symptoms
Infections and Amebiasis and giardiasis 1 1 34

infestations
Cholera 1 1 44
Human immunodeficiency virus 1 2 112

(HIV)
Influenza-like illness 3 4 1259
Malaria 1 1 74
Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis 1 1 150
Injury, trauma and Acute ankle sprains 1 1 69

postoperative
disorders Acute trauma 1 1 20
Mild traumatic brain injury 2 1 61


reviews
Postoperative pain-agitation 2 1 50
syndrome
Musculoskeletal Ankylosing spondylitis 1 1 104

and connective
tissue disorders Chronic polyarthritis 1 1 111
Delayed-onset muscle soreness 2 8 315
Fibromyalgia 7 4 163
Knee joint haematoma 1 1 80
Osteoarthritis 3 5 998
Rheumatoid arthritis 3 5 573
Neurological Broca’s aphasia in people who 1 1 36

have had a stroke
Stroke 1 1 40
Migraine and headache 4 4 295
Pregnancy and Dystocia 1 1 34

childbirth
Induction of labour or reducing 1 2 133
duration of labour
Psychiatric and Children with attention 4 4 170

behavioural deficit/hyperactivity disorder
disorders
Anxiety or stress-related 2 11 581
conditions
Personality disorder 1 0 0
Dementia 1 0 0
Depression 1 2 34
Heroin addiction 1 1 60
Reproductive Premenstrual syndrome 3 5 103

system and breast
disorders Lactation in postpartum women 1 1 71
who elect not to breastfeed
Respiratory and Adenoid vegetation in children 1 2 137

allergic
Allergic rhinitis 5 16 1831
Asthma 6 8 675
Bronchitis 1 1 258


reviews
Cough 1 1 60
Oral lichen planus 1 1 30
Non-allergic rhinitis 1 4 1359
Sinusitis 2 3 420
Upper respiratory tract infection 3 7 3192
Skin and Acne vulgaris 1 1 30

subcutaneous
tissue disorders Boils and pyoderma 1 1 46
Bruising 1 2 23
Second and third degree burns 1 1 103
Eczema 2 1 277
Seborrhoeic dermatitis 1 1 41
Ulcers 2 2 123
Uraemic pruritis 1 1 28
Warts 4 3 277
Sleep disorders Chronic fatigue syndrome 6 3 197

and fatigue
Sleep or circadian rhythm 4 8 330
disturbances
Adverse effects of Adverse effects of venous 1 1 29

cancer treatments cannulation
Chemotherapy-associated 1 1 65
nausea/vomiting
Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis 3 2 59
Hot flushes in women with a 3 2 136

history of breast cancer
Radiodermatitis in patients 3 1 66
undergoing radiotherapy
Pain Chronic facial pain 1 0 0
Lower back pain 1 1 161
Pain in dental practice 2 6 364
Pain following orthopaedic 1 3 181

surgery

4.2 Summary of systematic reviews that broadly examined the

effectiveness of homeopathy across a range of clinical
conditions
Forty nine of the included systematic reviews examined the effectiveness of homeopathy for a
specific clinical condition. The remaining eight systematic reviews broadly examined the
effectiveness of homeopathy across a range of different clinical conditions and therapeutic areas.
Whilst these broad reviews do not aim to inform clinical decision making on the effectiveness of
homeopathy for a specific clinical condition, they provide useful, high level evidence on the general
effectiveness of homeopathy in comparison to placebo. In this Overview Report, these broad
systematic reviews have been split according to the clinical conditions reported in the review (i.e. the
results of specific clinical conditions have been extracted from the systematic review and reported
under the relevant clinical conditions in this report). However, the overall aims and results of these
broad systematic reviews are summarised in Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.8 below.
4.2.1 Bellavite et al (2011)

The systematic review by Bellavite et al (2011) aimed “to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy
for the treatment of respiratory allergies, common upper respiratory tract infections,
otorhinolaryngologic complaints and rheumatic diseases”. The review included a total of 83 primary
studies that comprised Level II and Level III-2 studies, in addition to non-randomised, uncontrolled
studies. Only the 50 Level II and 12 Level III-2 studies that examined 16 clinical conditions were
considered in this Overview Report. Bellavite et al (2011) provided a descriptive individual
assessment of the body of evidence on homeopathy for these specific clinical conditions, based on
whether there was good, unclear or conflicting, or negative scientific evidence. However, the authors
noted that “a large number of observational studies and of clinical trials – conducted in a
methodologically correct manner without altering the treatment setting – are needed before sure
conclusions concerning the application of homeopathy for specific diseases can be drawn”.
4.2.2 Davidson et al (2011)

The systematic review by Davidson et al (2011) aimed “to systematically review placebo-controlled
randomised trials of homeopathy for psychiatric conditions”. The review included 25 Level II studies
that examined seven clinical conditions (mild traumatic brain injury, fibromyalgia, children with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety or stress-related conditions, premenstrual
syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances). Davidson et
al (2011) provided a general descriptive assessment of the body of evidence on homeopathy for
these psychiatric conditions. The authors noted that “sample sizes were generally small, and overall
confidence in the results was graded as moderate or low, suggesting that further research could well
change the estimate of effect”. Overall, Davidson et al (2011) concluded that the “results do not
preclude the possibility of some benefit (of homeopathy) – efficacy was found for the functional
somatic syndromes group (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome), but not for anxiety or stress.
For other disorders, homeopathy produced mixed effects”.
4.2.3 Simonart et al (2011)

The systematic review by Simonart et al (2011) aimed to “assess the evidence for the efficacy of
homeopathic treatments in dermatology”. The review included eight Level II studies and four Level
III-2 studies that examined six clinical conditions (recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, eczema,

seborrhoeic dermatitis, ulcers, uraemic pruritis, and radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients
undergoing radiotherapy). Simonart et al (2011) provided a general descriptive assessment of the
body of evidence on homeopathy for dermatology. Overall, the authors concluded that “the
hypothesis that any dermatological condition responds convincingly better to homeopathic
treatment than to placebo or other control interventions is not supported by evidence. The evidence
in our overall analysis would be more compelling if there were independently replicated, large-scale
rigorous homeopathic trials. Until more compelling results are available, homeopathy cannot be
viewed as an evidence-based form of therapy in dermatology”.
4.2.4 Altunc et al (2007)

The systematic review by Altunc et al (2007) aimed “to assess the evidence of any type of therapeutic
or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments”. The review
included 16 Level II studies that descriptively examined nine clinical conditions in children and
adolescents (adenoid vegetation, children with ADHD, asthma, acute otitis media, conjunctivitis,
diarrhoea, postoperative pain-agitation syndrome, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and
warts). The authors noted that with the exception of ADHD and diarrhoea (three primary studies
each), no condition was assessed in more than two double-blind Level II studies. Altunc et al (2007)
concluded that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive
intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough
for recommendations in any condition”.
4.2.5 Cucherat et al (2000)

Cucherat et al (2000) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine “whether there
is any evidence from randomised controlled trials of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment in
patients with any disease”. The review included 16 Level II studies that examined 15 clinical
conditions. The authors synthesised the evidence by combining the significance levels (p-values) for
the primary outcomes from the individual trials. The results showed that the combined p-value for
homeopathy was highly significant (p=0.000036). However, sensitivity analysis showed that the p-
value tended towards a non-significant value (p=0.08) as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner
based on their level of quality. Overall, Cucherat et al (2000) concluded that “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”.
4.2.6 Ernst and Pittler (1998)

The systematic review by Ernst and Pittler (1998) aimed to “systematically review the clinical efficacy
of homeopathic Arnica”. The review included four Level II studies and four Level III-2 studies that
examined four clinical conditions (acute trauma, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), stroke, and
bruising). Ernst and Pittler (1998) provided a general descriptive assessment of the body of evidence
on homeopathy for these conditions. The authors noted that they did not perform a meta-analysis as
“the conclusions that can be drawn from such meta-analysis are limited and several caveats have
been identified. There could be indefinable bias and the pooling of trials of vastly different remedies
for vastly different conditions is of debatable legitimacy”. The authors also commented that the
included primary studies were methodologically weak, and “generally speaking, the more rigorous
studies tended to be the ones that yielded negative findings”. Overall, Ernst and Pittler (1998)

concluded that “the hypothesis claiming that homeopathic Arnica is clinically effective beyond a
placebo effect is not based on methodologically sound placebo-controlled trials”.
4.2.7 Linde and Melchart (1998)

Linde and Melchart (1998) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to “summarise the
actual state of clinical efficacy research on individualised homeopathy”. The review included 31 Level
II or Level III-1 studies that examined 19 clinical conditions. A meta-analysis of the 17 trials that
presented sufficient data for meta-analysis showed an overall trend in favour of homeopathy (Risk
Ratio (RR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 2.23). The pooled risk ratio of the six studies that
were likely to have good methodological quality as subjectively assessed by Linde and Melchart
(1998) was smaller and not statistically significant (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44). The authors noted,
however, that “the results of the quantitative meta-analysis should only be seen as a crude indicator
of the trend of the results in the single trials. However, the fact that the more rigorous trials had less
positive results is an indicator that in the less rigorous trials, bias may have led to an overestimation
of eventual differences between treatment and placebo”. Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998)
concluded that “the results of the available randomised trials suggest that individualised
homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of
methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
4.2.8 Linde et al (1997)

Linde et al (1997) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to “assess whether the clinical
effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that
reported in placebo”. The review included 89 controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of
homeopathy across multiple clinical conditions. All 89 studies were pooled together in a meta-
analysis, where the result of a single outcome for each study was presented as a forest plot of odds
ratios. However, the numerical odds ratio was not presented for each individual study and the input
data to calculate the odds ratios were not provided. The pooled meta-analysis also comprised
multiple different clinical conditions, homeopathic interventions, and outcomes. Nevertheless, the
results of the meta-analysis reported a significant effect in favour of homeopathy (Odds Ratio (OR)
2.27; 95% CI 1.62 to 3.18) (Erratum in Linde, 1998). For the purposes of this Overview Report, only
the clinical conditions with numerical results data were extracted and included in this evidence
review (two clinical conditions; post-operative ileus and allergic rhinitis). Overall, Linde et al (1997)
concluded that “the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the
clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient
evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition”.

4.4 Eye, ear and labyrinth disorders

4.4.1 Children with otitis media
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with otitis media was assessed in
three systematic reviews as summarised in Table 7 and Table 8. In total, two Level II studies and two
Level III-2 studies were included in the assessment of otitis media (Table 7). None of the systematic
reviews performed a meta-analysis of the data.
Table 7 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of children with otitis media
Study ID
Jacobs et al Harrison (1999) Kruse (1998) Friese et al (1997)
(2001) [Level II] [Level III-2] [Level III-2]
[Level II]
NCC-WCH (2008)

Systematic review
[Level I]
Altunc e al (2007)

[Level I]
Bellavite et al (2011)
  
[Level I/III]
The National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (2008) (hereafter referred to
as NCC-WCH, 2008) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of non-
surgical interventions in children with otitis media with effusion. The results of this review formed
the basis of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. The
homeopathy search yielded one relevant Level II study that was given a rating of -1 (i.e. poor quality),
using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) assessment tool. Harrison (1999) was a
pilot Level II study to determine if homeopathic treatment of children with otitis media with effusion
was more effective than standard care (i.e. “watchful waiting” with autoinflation and in some cases,
a course of low-dose antibiotics). After 12 months of follow up, there was no significant difference in
audiometric improvement between the two groups, but there was a significant difference in favour
of homeopathy for improvement in tympanograms. The systematic review noted, however, that this
Level II study was limited by the small sample size and no blinding of the participants. Importantly,
there was a significant difference in the level of initial hearing loss at baseline between children in
the treatment and placebo groups. NCC-WCH (2008) concluded that due to the lack of a published
evidence base, “homeopathy is not recommended for the management of otitis media with
effusion”.
The systematic review by Altunc et al (2007) (AMSTAR score 6/10) assessed the evidence for
homeopathy (and other therapeutic or preventive interventions) for childhood and adolescent
ailments. For the otitis media indication, one Level II study (with a Jadad score of 5) was included;
Jacobs et al (2001) investigated the effect of individualised homeopathic treatments in children with
acute otitis media compared with placebo. The study reported no significant difference in treatment
failures or the presence of middle ear effusion between the two groups. There was, however, a
significant decrease in symptom scores as recorded by parent diaries in the homeopathy group
compared with placebo. Altunc et al (2007) noted that these data require independent replication

and concluded that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or
preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not
convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”.
Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy for
the treatment of a range of diseases including infections of the upper airways and ear-nose-throat
ailments. One Level II study and two Level III-2 studies were included in the review for otitis media.
Bellavite et al (2011) reported that the Level II study by Jacobs et al (2001) found a non-significant
trend towards less treatment failure and a significant decrease in symptoms (p<0.05) in the
homeopathy group compared with placebo in children with acute otitis media. Both of the Level III-2
studies (Friese et al, 1997; Kruse, 1998) assessed the effect of individualised homeopathy in children
with otitis media. Kruse (1998) reported “equivalent efficacy” in homeopathy and conventional
therapies based on the duration of pain and therapy, and Friese et al (1997) found no significant
difference between individualised homeopathy and conventional therapy (antibiotics, mucolytics and
antipyretics) in mean duration of pain. Overall, Bellavite et al (2011) concluded there was “good
positive evidence” for individualised homeopathy in otitis media.
Reviewer comments
In addition to the trials described above, Bellavite et al (2011) took results from additional non-
controlled studies into account when they drew their conclusion of “good positive evidence” for
individualised homeopathy in otitis media. Those studies were not within the scope of this overview
and have therefore not been considered.
The quality of the studies included in the systematic review by Bellavite et al (2011) was also not
assessed by the authors. Based on the quality rating given by Altunc et al (2007), the evidence
reviewer assumes that Jacobs et al (2001) was a good-quality trial; however, the quality of the two
Level III-2 studies that were only reported by Bellavite et al (2011) is unknown.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of poor and medium quality identified one small randomised controlled trial
(good quality; 75 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
children with acute otitis media. LOC: Low.
Based on only one small study there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about the
effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of children with acute otitis
media.
Two systematic reviews of poor and medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled
trial (poor quality; 33 participants) and two prospectively designed, non-randomised controlled
studies (quality not reported; 126 and 131 participants) that compared homeopathy with other
therapies (antibiotics, mucolytics, secretolytics, antipyretics and nasal sprays) or watchful waiting for
the treatment of children with acute otitis media or otitis media with effusion.
These studies are of insufficient quality and/or size to warrant further consideration of their findings.
LOC: Very low - low.

Based on the body of evidence evaluated in this review there is no reliable evidence that
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of children with acute otitis
media or otitis media with effusion.

Table 8 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with otitis media
Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as Systematic review
Level of Level of reported in the interpretation
a a
evidence evidence systematic
b c review
Quality Quality
Sample size
NCC-WCH Harrison (1999) Children aged 18 Homeopathy Standard Audiometric No significant “Homeopathy is not
(2008) [Level II] months to 8 years with care improvement difference recommended for the
d a diagnosis of otitis (“watchful (hearing loss management of otitis media
[Level I] SIGN EL 1-
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=33 media with effusion by waiting” with <20 dB) with effusion.”
the patient’s general autoinflation
practitioner, hearing or a course Improvement Significant
SR of CAM for in difference in favour
acute otitis loss >20 dB and an of low-dose
abnormal antibiotics) tympanograms of homeopathy
media (p=0.01) (76.4%
tympanogram
versus 31.3%)
Altunc et al Jacobs et al (2001) Children with acute Individualised homeopathy, Placebo Symptom Significant “The evidence from rigorous
(2007) [Level II] otitis media non-material potencies, 5 scores (as difference in favour clinical trials of any type of
e
[Level I] Jadad score 5  Intervention group: mean days or until improvement recorded by of homeopathy therapeutic or preventive
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=75 age 3.5 years  8 different remedies in C30 parent diaries) (p<0.05) intervention testing
 Control group: mean age potency; 4 most commonly homeopathy for childhood and
3.1 years used were Pulsatilla nigrans, Treatment No significant adolescence ailments is not
SR of  41% male Chamomilla, sulphur, Calcarea failures difference
homeopathy convincing enough for
 Concomitant treatment: carbonica; 3-5 pellets 3 times
for multiple Presence of No significant recommendations in any
analgesics (10 in placebo daily
conditions group and 5 in middle ear difference condition.”
homeopathy group) effusion
(Note: this conclusion refers to
Adverse None all clinical conditions and is not
events specific to children with otitis
media)
Bellavite et al Jacobs et al (2001) Children with acute Individualised homeopathy Placebo Treatment Less failure in Good positive evidence for
(2011) [Level II] otitis media failure (5 days, homeopathy group, individualised homeopathy in
[Level I/III] Quality not 2 weeks, 6 non-significant otitis
AMSTAR: 5/10 specified weeks)
N=75
Symptom Significant
SR of scores (as decrease in

Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as Systematic review
Level of Level of reported in the interpretation
a a
b c review
Quality Quality
Sample size
homeopathy recorded by symptoms in
for multiple parent diaries) homeopathy group
conditions compared to
placebo (p<0.05) at
24 and 64 hours
after treatment
Kruse (1998) Children with otitis Individualised homeopathy Conventional Duration of “Equivalent
[Level III-2] media therapies pain and efficacy” (3 days in
Quality not (antibiotics, therapy the homeopathy
specified secretolytics, group; 4 days in the
N=126 antipyretics conventional
and nasal therapy group)
sprays)
Recurrence No significant
difference (70.7% in
the homeopathy
group; 64% in the
conventional
therapy group)
Friese et al (1997) Children with otitis Individualised homeopathy Conventional Mean duration No significant
[Level III-2] media therapies of pain difference
Quality not (antibiotics,
specified mucolytics,
N=131 antipyretics)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; C, centesimal; dB, decibels; EL, evidence level; NCC-WCH, National
Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SR, systematic review.
a
Level of evidence as assessed by the evidence reviewer.
b
Study quality as assessed by the evidence reviewer using the AMSTAR measurement toolkit.
c
Study quality as reported in the systematic review.
d ++
SIGN evidence level assesses the quality of the evidence based on study design and risk of bias. The range of possible scores is 4 (low) to 1 (high). Studies with a level of evidence ‘–‘ should
not be used as a basis for making a recommendation due to high risk of bias.

e
The Jadad scale assesses the quality of published clinical trials based methods relevant to random assignment, double blinding and the flow of patients. The range of possible scores is zero
(bad quality) to 5 (good quality).

4.4.2 Glaucoma
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with glaucoma was assessed in one
systematic review that formed the basis of a NICE clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and
management of chronic open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (National Collaborating
Centre for Acute Care, 2009; AMSTAR score 3/5). The results of a literature search conducted in
August 2008 identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Evidence statement
One systematic review (2008) did not identify any prospectively designed and controlled studies that
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in people with glaucoma.
4.5 Gastrointestinal disorders

4.5.1 Children with constipation
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with constipation was assessed in two
systematic reviews (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2010; Tabbers et al, 2011). No
relevant published evidence was found in the literature search conducted by the National
Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (2010) (AMSTAR score 3/5) in July 2009. A literature search in
January 2010 by Tabbers et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 4/5) also failed to identify any prospectively
designed and controlled studies on the effects of homeopathy for children with constipation.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews (2010, 2011) did not identify any prospectively designed and controlled
studies that assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in children with constipation.

4.5.2 Children with diarrhoea

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with diarrhoea was assessed in four
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 9 and Table 10. In total, the systematic reviews included
four Level II studies that were all conducted by the same research group (Table 9).
Table 9 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of diarrhoea
Study ID
Jacobs (2006) Jacobs Jacobs (1994) Jacobs (1993)
a
[Level II] (1997/2000) [Level II] [Level II]
[Level II]
NCC-WCH (2009)
   
[Level I]
Systematic review
Altunc et al (2007)
  
[Level I]
Cucherat et al (2000)

[Level I]
Linde and Melchart (1998)
  
[Level I]
a
Jacobs (1997) and Jacobs (2000) were the same study. The study was referred to as Jacobs (1997) in Linde and Melchart
(1998) and Jacobs (2000) in NCC-WCH (2009) and Altunc et al (2007).
The National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (2009) (hereafter referred to
as NCC-WCH, 2009; AMSTAR score of 5/10) performed a systematic review of alternative or
complementary therapies in the treatment of gastroenteritis. The results of this review formed the
basis of a NICE clinical practice guideline on diarrhoea and vomiting caused by gastroenteritis. One
review and one good-quality Level II study were included. Jacobs (2006) was a Level II study that
investigated the effect of homeopathic combination therapy tablets in children aged between 5
months and 6 years who had acute diarrhoea. The study found no significant difference between
homeopathy and placebo for the duration of diarrhoea, mean rate of unformed stool passage per
day, or total number of unformed stools during follow-up. NCC-WCH (2009) also considered the
results of a review1 and meta-analysis (Jacobs et al, 2003) that included the Level II studies by Jacobs
(1993), Jacobs (1994) and Jacobs (2000). Overall, NCC-WCH (2009) concluded “the clinical trials
assessing homeopathy had significant methodological limitations. Moreover, there was a lack of
consistency in the evidence. Therefore, no recommendation was made for the use of homeopathy”.
The systematic review by Altunc et al (2007) (AMSTAR score of 6/10) assessed the evidence of any
type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescent
ailments. Three Level II studies (each assigned a Jadad score of 5 by Altunc et al) were identified for
the treatment of children with diarrhoea (Jacobs, 2000; Jacobs, 1994; Jacobs, 1993). All three Level II
studies were similar in design and tested individualised homeopathy in acute childhood diarrhoea.
Two Level II studies (Jacobs, 2000; Jacobs, 1994) reported significant effects in favour of homeopathy
1
This review was excluded for the purposes of the current overview as the included studies were not identified by
systematic means.

for the duration of diarrhoea and the number of unformed stools. The third Level II study (Jacobs,
1993) found no significant differences between homeopathy and placebo for either of these
outcomes. Altunc et al (2007) concluded that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of
therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments
is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”.
Cucherat et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) aimed to answer the question of “whether there is any
evidence from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is efficacious for the treatment of
disease in humans”. One Level II study (Jacobs, 1994) was identified for the childhood diarrhoea
indication. Similar to the other systematic reviews, Cucherat et al (2000) also reported that there was
a significant effect of homeopathy (p=0.048) in the duration of diarrhoea. The quality of Jacobs
(1994) was not formally assessed by Cucherat et al (2000); however, a general comment was made
about all of the included studies that “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low
methodological quality of the trials”. Cucherat et al (2000) also noted that the studies of high
methodological quality were more likely to provide negative results for homeopathy compared to
the lower quality studies. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available
evidence is insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective”.
In addition, Cucherat et al (2000) conducted several meta-analyses with different combinations of
studies (based on attributes such as blinding, attrition and type of homeopathic preparation).
However, the authors acknowledge that “the meta-analysis method used does not allow any
conclusion on what homeopathic treatment is effective in which diagnosis or against which
symptoms”. For that reason, the results of the meta-analyses will not be discussed in detail in the
remainder of this report.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score of 8/11) examined the state of clinical efficacy research on
individualised homeopathy and identified three Level II studies (Jacobs, 1993; Jacobs, 1994; Jacobs,
1997) for the childhood diarrhoea indication. Consistent with all of the above systematic reviews,
Linde and Melchart (1998) reported a significant effect of homeopathy in all of the primary outcomes
measured in Jacobs (1994). The authors of the systematic review also noted that there were
“positive trends, but no significant inter-group differences” between homeopathy and placebo in
Jacobs (1993). Jacobs (1997), reported elsewhere as Jacobs (2000), was a Level II study that tested
the effect of individualised homeopathy in children with diarrhoea. The study found no significant
difference between the homeopathy and placebo groups.
A meta-analysis of all included studies for all clinical conditions (not specific to children with
diarrhoea) conducted by Linde and Melchart (1998) found an overall trend in favour of homeopathy
(RR 1.62; 95% CI 1.17, 2.23). However, the pooled rate ratio of the “methodologically best” studies
(which included Jacobs, 1994) was clearly smaller and no longer statistically significant (RR 1.12; 95%
CI 0.87, 1.44). The pooled findings are unlikely to be of value due to the highly heterogeneous group
of studies and conditions that were included in the meta-analyses. As such, the results of the meta-
analyses conducted by Linde and Melchart (1998) will not be discussed in detail in the remainder of
this report. Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998) concluded that any evidence suggesting that
homeopathy has an effect over placebo is “not convincing because of methodological shortcomings
and inconsistencies”.

Reviewer comments
The current evidence base for homeopathy for the treatment of children with diarrhoea is limited by
the fact that all of the identified studies were carried out by the same research group.
Evidence statement
Four systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified four randomised controlled trials (medium
to good quality; total of 544 participants, range: 34-292), all conducted by the same research group,
that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of children with diarrhoea.
The one medium-sized, good-quality trial (292 participants) did not detect a difference between
combined homeopathy and placebo in the treatment of children with diarrhoea.
The studies of individualised homeopathy are of insufficient quality and/or size to warrant further
consideration of their findings. LOC: Low - moderate.
Based on the body of evidence evaluated in this review combined homeopathy is not more effective
than placebo for the treatment of children with diarrhoea and there is no reliable evidence that
individualised homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of children with
diarrhoea.

Table 10 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with diarrhoea
Study ID Included Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as Systematic review
Level of study reported in the interpretation
a
evidence Level of systematic
b a
Quality evidence review
c
Quality
Sample size
NCC-WCH Jacobs (2006) Children aged between Homeopathic combination Placebo Duration of No significant "The Guidelines Development
(2009) [Level II] 5 months and 6 years therapy tablets (Arsenicum diarrhoea difference Group considered that the
d
[Level I] SIGN EL 1+ who had acute album, Calcarea carbonica, clinical trials assessing
diarrhoea (defined as chamomilla, podophyllum Mean rate of No significant homeopathy had significant
AMSTAR: 5/10 N=292
the passage of three or and sulphur – in a liquid unformed stool difference methodological limitations.
more unformed stools homeopathic dilution in the passage per Moreover, there was a lack of
SR of CAM for day during
childhood in the previous 24 30C potency) consistency in the evidence.
hours) that was follow up Therefore, no
diarrhoea
confirmed visually by Total number No significant recommendation was made
study staff of unformed difference for the use of homeopathy.”
stools during
follow up
e
Altunc et al Jacobs (2000) Children with 19 different remedies in 30C Placebo Number of days Significant effect in "The evidence from rigorous
(2007) [Level II] diarrhoea potency, one dose after every with diarrhoea favour of clinical trials of any type of
[Level I] Jadad score 5
f  Intervention: mean age unformed stool for 5 days; 5 homeopathy therapeutic or preventive
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=126 1.7 years most common: Podophyllum, (p=0.04) intervention testing
 Control: mean age 1.4 sulphur, Arsenicum album, homeopathy for childhood
years Calcarea carbonica, Number of Significant effect in and adolescence ailments is
SR of  67.5% male daily stools favour of
homeopathy for Chamomilla not convincing enough for
 Concomitant treatment: homeopathy
multiple recommendations in any
oral rehydration therapy, (p=0.02)
conditions normal feeding;
condition.”
standard antiparasitic
medication at end of (Note: this conclusion refers
intervention if needed to all clinical conditions and is

a
b a
c
Quality
Sample size
Jacobs (1994) Children with 18 different remedies in 30C Placebo Number of days Significant effect in not specific to childhood
[Level II] diarrhoea potency, one dose after every with diarrhoea favour of diarrhoea)
Jadad score 5
f  Intervention: mean age unformed stool for 5 days: homeopathy
N=92 1.6 yr Podophyllum, Chamomilla, (p=0.048)
 Control: mean age 1.5 yr Arsenicum album, Calcarea
 Concomitant treatment: carbonica, sulphur, Mercurius Number of Significant effect in
oral rehydration therapy, vivus, Pulsatilla, phosphorus, daily stools favour of
normal feeding;
China, Gambogia, Aethusia, homeopathy
medication at the end of aloe, belladonna, Bryonia, difference (p<0.05)
intervention if needed; Colchicum, Croton tiglium,
Dulcamara, Nux vomica Adverse events No adverse events
11 children were given
antidiarrheal medication
by their parents (6 in
placebo group; 5 in
homeopathy group)
Jacobs (1993) Children aged between Various remedies in 30C Placebo Number of days No significant
[Level II] 6 months to 5 years potency (no details reported), with diarrhoea difference
f with diarrhoea 2 pills daily for 3 days or until
Jadad score 5
 Concomitant treatment: improvement Number of No significant
N=34 daily stools difference
oral rehydration therapy,
normal feeding;
medication at the end of
intervention if needed
Cucherat et al Jacobs (1994) Children with acute Individualised homeopathy Placebo Number of days Significant "It is clear that the strength of
(2000) [Level II] childhood diarrhoea with diarrhoea difference in available evidence is
[Level I] Quality not favour of insufficient to conclude that
AMSTAR: 10/11 specified homeopathy homeopathy is clinically
N=92 (81 (p=0.048) effective.”
SR of evaluated)
homeopathy for (Note: this conclusion refers
multiple to all clinical conditions and is

a
b a
c
Quality
Sample size
conditions not specific to childhood
diarrhoea)
e
Linde and Jacobs (1997) Children with Fully individualised, computer- Placebo Number of days No significant Conclusion of the systematic
Melchart (1998) [Level II] diarrhoea assisted (RADAR) choice of with diarrhoea difference review:
[Level I] Quality not remedy, taken as C30 after A meta-analysis found an
AMSTAR: 8/11 specified each unformed stool overall trend in favour of
N=126 homeopathy.
SR of 1. The rate ratio was 1.62 (95% CI
Jacobs (1994) Children with Fully individualised, computer- Placebo Number of days Significant 1.17 to 2.23) and the odds ratio
homeopathy for
[Level II] diarrhoea assisted (RADAR) choice of with diarrhoea difference was 2.62
multiple g 2. The pooled rate ratio of the
Quality: 5,5 remedy, taken as C30 after between groups
conditions methodologically best studies
N=92 each unformed stool (p<0.05)
was clearly smaller and not
 Intervention: 3.0
statistically significant (1.12,
days
95% CI 0.87, 1.44). This meta-
 Control: 3.8 days
analysis included Jacobs (1994).
Days to first “Homeopathy 3. The rate ratio of the six studies
formed stool significantly published in MEDLINE-listed
journals was not significantly
better” (p-value
different from placebo (1.22,
not reported) 95% CI 0.94, 1.56). This meta-
analysis included Jacobs (1994)
Diarrhoea score “Homeopathy
significantly
better” (p-value (Note: results of meta-analysis
not reported) refer to all clinical conditions
and are not specific to
Jacobs (1993) Children with Fully individualised computer- Placebo Number of days Positive trends, diarrhoea)
[Level II] diarrhoea assisted (RADAR) choice of with diarrhoea but no significant
g remedy, taken as C30 twice inter-group
Quality: 3,3
N=34 daily for 3 days differences
(p=0.28)
 Intervention: 2.4
days

a
b a
c
Quality
Sample size
 Control: 3.0 days
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; EL, Evidence level; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate
Guidelines Network; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d ++
SIGN evidence level assesses the quality of the evidence based on study design and risk of bias. The range of possible scores is 4 (low) to 1 (high). Studies with a level of evidence ‘–‘
should not be used as a basis for making a recommendation due to high risk of bias.
e
Jacobs (1997) and Jacobs (2000) were the same study. The study was referred to as Jacobs (1997) in Linde and Melchart (1998) and Jacobs (2000) in NCC-WCH (2009) and Altunc et al
(2007).
f
g
Quality was assessed using (i) Jadad score, out of five; (ii) internal validity score, out of six.

4.5.3 Irritable bowel syndrome

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome was
assessed in two systematic reviews (Linde and Melchart, 1998; National Collaborating Centre for
Nursing and Supportive Care, 2008) as summarised in Table 11. The review conducted by the
National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care (AMSTAR score 3/5) formed the basis
of the NICE clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome
in primary care. Based on a literature search conducted in June 2007, the review authors did not find
any studies that met their inclusion criteria.
The systematic review by Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) examined the efficacy of
individualised homeopathy on a range of clinical conditions. The authors identified one Level II study
(Lecoyte et al, 1993; Jadad score 1) that assessed the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic
simillimum compared to conventional remedies (dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents,
diet advice) for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. No studies were identified that compared
homeopathy to placebo for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Lecoyte et al (1993) reported
“similar improvements in both groups”; however, the measure used to assess improvements was not
clear. Linde and Melchart (1998) did not provide an overall conclusion regarding the efficacy of
homeopathy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. However, they stated that the trial was of
poor quality, with an insufficient sample size and no blinding.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews (1998, 2008) did not identify any prospectively designed and controlled
studies that assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with placebo for the treatment of
people with irritable bowel syndrome.
One systematic review of medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial (poor
quality; 23 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with other therapies (dicyclomine
hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet advice) for the treatment of people with irritable bowel
syndrome. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one very small poor quality study there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to the other therapies for the
treatment of people with irritable bowel syndrome.

Table 11 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic review interpretation
Level of Level of population the systematic review
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Lecoyte et al Patients with Individualised Dicyclomine Unclear “Similar improvements in No specific conclusions were provided
Melchart (1993) irritable bowel simillimum hydrochloride, both groups” regarding the efficacy of homeopathy for
(1998) [Level II] syndrome (all faecal bulking irritable bowel syndrome.
d
[Level I] Quality: 1, 1.5 female; 20-69 agents, diet
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=23 years of age) advice The trial was of poor quality due to an
insufficient sample size and no blinding.
SR of
homeopathy
for multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.5.4 Postoperative ileus

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with postoperative ileus was assessed
in three systematic reviews as summarised in Table 12 and Table 13. In total, the systematic reviews
included five Level II studies and two Level III-2 studies (Table 12). Two of the systematic reviews
(Barnes et al, 1997; Linde et al, 1997) performed a meta-analysis of the data.
Table 12 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of postoperative ileus
Systematic review
Cucherat et al (2000) Barnes et al (1997) Linde et al (1997)
[Level I] [Level I] [Level I]
GRECHO
(1987/1989)   
[Level II]
Aulagnier (1985)
 
[Level II]
Chevrel (1984)
 
[Level II]
Study ID
Estrangin (1983)

[Level II]
Valero (1981)
 
[Level II]
Dorfman (1992)
 
[Level III-2]
Castelin (1979)

[Level III-2]
disease in humans”. The review included the results of GRECHO (Groupe de Rechereche et d’Essais
Cliniques en Homeopathie) (1989), which was a three-armed Level II study that examined the effect
of homeopathic Opium or homeopathic Raphanus and Opium compared with placebo in patients
with postoperative ileus. The study found no significant difference in the delay to first stool between
homeopathy and placebo groups, in either intervention arm. Cucherat et al (2000) concluded that "it
is clear that the strength of available evidence is insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically
effective".
Barnes et al (1997) (AMSTAR score of 6/11) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of
controlled trials "to determine if homeopathic treatment has any greater effect than placebo
treatment in the restoration of intestinal peristalsis in patients after abdominal or gynaecologic
surgery". Six prospectively designed and controlled studies were included in the analysis (Aulagnier,
1985; Castelin, 1979; Chevrel, 1984; Dorfman 1992; GRECHO, 1989; Valero, 1981), however the
evidence reviewer notes that this includes a mix of Level II and Level III-2 studies. A seventh study
(Estrangin, 1983) was excluded as the data were expressed in an inappropriate form for meta-
analysis. Quantitative results of the time to first flatus and time to first faeces were presented for all
of the included studies where applicable; however, any statistical significance of the data was not
specified. Rather, Barnes et al (1997) descriptively noted that all of the studies (with the exclusion of
GRECHO, 1989) reported a "positive" effect for homeopathy, compared with placebo, on the time to
first flatus. The Level II study by GRECHO (1989) found "no effect" for homeopathy in this respect.
Two of the four studies that also measured time to first faeces reported a positive effect for
homeopathy (Castelin, 1979; Aulagnier, 1985), one reported a "statistically non-significant" mean
reduction in time to first faeces in patients who received homeopathy (Chevrel, 1984) and one Level
II study reported no difference between homeopathy and placebo (GRECHO, 1989).
A meta-analysis of all six included studies revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of
homeopathy for time to first flatus (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.4; 95% CI -4.0 to -10.8;
p<0.05). This effect remained even with the exclusion of the two low quality studies (Castelin, 1979;
Dorfman, 1992) (WMD -6.11; 95% CI -2.31 to -9.91; p<0.005). A significant effect in favour of
homeopathy was also found for time to first flatus when a homeopathic remedy of less than 12C
potency was used (4 studies; WMD -6.6; 95% CI -2.6 to -10.5; p<0.05). However, there was no
significant difference in time to first flatus with homeopathic remedies greater than 12C potency (3
studies; WMD -3.1; 95% CI -7.5 to 1.3). Barnes et al (1997) warned that the results of the meta-
analysis "must be interpreted with caution" as the included studies had a number of limitations.
Notably, two of the studies were non peer-reviewed theses (Castelin, 1979; Valero, 1981) and
heterogeneity was evident in the included studies. Overall, Barnes et al (1997) concluded that "there
is some evidence to support the administration of a homeopathic remedy immediately after surgery
to reduce the duration of ileus. However, there is no evidence to support the use of a particular
homeopathic remedy or for a combination of remedies".
Linde et al (1997) (AMSTAR score 9/11) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that aimed
to “assess whether the effect seen with homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that seen with
placebo”. Six prospectively designed and controlled studies were included in the analysis for
postoperative ileus (Aulagnier, 1985; Chevrel, 1984; Dorfman 1992; Estrangin, 1983; GRECHO, 1987;
Valero, 1981). The result of a single outcome for each study was presented as a forest plot of odds
ratios. The numerical odds ratio was not presented and the input data to calculate the odds ratios
were not provided. A graphical interpretation of the forest plot suggested a positive effect of
homeopathy for the primary outcome of three included studies (Aulagnier, 1985; Chevrel, 1984;
Dorfman, 1992). There appeared to be no difference between homeopathy and placebo in the
remaining three studies (Estrangin, 1983; GRECHO, 1987; Valero, 1981).
A meta-analysis of all included studies (excluding Estrangin, 1983) also found a statistically significant
difference in time to first flatulence (Cohen's d -0.22; 95% CI -0.36 to -0.09). Similarly, there was a
significant difference in time to first stool (Cohen's d -0.18; 95% CI -0.33 to -0.03).The overall
conclusion by Linde et al (1997) was that there was “insufficient evidence” that homeopathy is
“clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition”.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of medium to good quality identified five randomised controlled trials
(poor to good quality; total of 1095 participants, range: 96-600) and two prospectively designed,
non-randomised controlled studies (poor to medium quality; 20 and 80 participants) that compared
homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with postoperative ileus.

Two of the systematic reviews conducted meta-analyses that found a significant difference in favour
of homeopathy, but both meta-analyses included a number of poor quality studies with a high risk of
bias. The one large, good-quality trial (600 participants) did not detect a difference between
homeopathy and placebo in the treatment of postoperative ileus. LOC: Moderate.
Based on the body of evidence evaluated in this review homeopathy is not more effective than
placebo for the treatment of people with postoperative ileus.

Table 13 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of postoperative ileus
Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic review
Level of Level of the systematic review interpretation
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
e
Cucherat et al GRECHO (1989) Patients with post- Opium 15 °C Placebo Time to first No significant difference “It is clear that the strength of
(2000) [Level II] surgery ileus faeces (hr) (p=0.699) available evidence is insufficient to
[Level I] Quality not e conclude that homeopathy is
Patients with post- Raphanus 15 °C Placebo Time to first No significant difference clinically effective”
AMSTAR: specified
d surgery ileus and Opium 15 faeces (hr) (p=0.358)
10/11 N=450 °C
(Note: this conclusion refers to all
SR of clinical conditions and is not
homeopathy specific to postoperative ileus)
for multiple
conditions
Barnes et al GRECHO (1989) Patients with Opium 15C Placebo Time to first Mean (SD) Interpretation of the included Level
(1997) [Level II] postoperative ileus flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 54.2 (24.7) II studies:
[Level I] Quality: 90/100
g after abdominal or  Control group: 52.3 (26.8) “Our analyses suggest that
AMSTAR: 6/11 N=600
f gynaecologic surgery Significance NR homeopathic treatment
administered immediately after
Time to first Mean (SD)
SR of abdominal surgery may reduce the
faeces (hr)  Intervention group: 96.2 (39.8)
homeopathy time to first flatus when compared
 Control group: 94.4 (40.7)
for with placebo administration. They
Significance NR
postoperative do not provide evidence for the use
ileus Opium 15C + No treatment Time to first Mean (SD) of a particular homeopathic
Raphanus flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 54.8 (26.1) remedy or for a combination of
sativus 5C  Control group: 56.6 (26.3) remedies for postoperative ileus.”
Significance NR
Conclusion of the systematic
Time to first Mean (SD)
review:
faeces (hr)  Intervention group: 98.8 (42)
A meta-analysis of the results
Significance NR found:
 A significant effect in favour of
Aulagnier (1985) Patients with Opium 9C + Placebo Time to first Mean (SD) homeopathy for time to first flatus
[Level II] postoperative ileus Arnica Montana (unmedicated flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 59.28 (21.36) when all studies were included
after abdominal or 9C + Raphanus granules)  Control group: 76.08 (30) (WMD -7.4; 95% CI -4.0, -10.8; p<0.05).

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
g
Quality: 75/100 gynaecologic surgery sativus 9C Significance NR  A significant effect in favour of
N=200 homeopathy for time to first flatus
when 2 low quality studies were
excluded
Time to first Mean (SD) (WMD -6.11; 95% CI -2.31, -9.91;
faeces (hr)  Intervention group: 96.96 (34.08) p<0.05)
 Control group: 117.12 (38.4)  A significant effect in favour of
homeopathy for time to first flatus
Significance NR
with homeopathic remedy of <12C
Chevrel (1984) Patients with Opium 15C Placebo Time to first Mean (SD) potency
(WMD -6.6; 95% CI -2.6, -10.5;
[Level II] postoperative ileus (unmedicated flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 42.7 (21.9)
p<0.05)
Quality: 58/100
g after abdominal or granules)  Control group: 52.0 (22.0)
 No significant difference in time to first
N=96 gynaecologic surgery Significance NR flatus with homeopathic remedy of
≥12C potency
Time to first No significant difference.
(WMD -3.1; 95% CI -7.5, 1.3)
faeces (hr) Mean (SD)
 Intervention group: 78.2 (30.5)
Valero (1981) Patients with Raphanus Placebo Time to first Mean (SD)
[Level II] postoperative ileus sativus 7C (unmedicated flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 53.3 (25.02)
Quality: 80/100
N=80 gynaecologic surgery Significance not reported
Dorfman (1992) Patients with China regia 5C + Placebo (drops – Time to first Mean (SD)
[Level III-2] postoperative ileus Arnica montana alcohol diluted in flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 46.5 (23.5)
Quality: 50/100
g after abdominal or 9C + Raphanus water)  Control group: 62 (28)
N=80 gynaecologic surgery sativus 5C Significance NR
Castelin (1979) Patients with Opium 15C Placebo Time to first Mean (SD)
[Level III-2] postoperative ileus (unmedicated flatus (hr)  Intervention group: 24.9 (8.6)
Quality: 20/100
Significance NR

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
N=20 gynaecologic surgery Time to first Mean (SD)
faeces (hr)  Intervention group: 83.7 (21.6)
Significance NR
Linde et al GRECHO (1987) Patients with Opium C15 Placebo Time to first Odds ratio showed no Conclusion of the systematic
(1997) [Level II] postoperative ileus (+C15, Raph C5 flatus <2 days difference between review:
h homeopathy and placebo
[Level I] Quality: 80/86 A meta-analysis of all included
AMSTAR: 9/11 N=450 studies (excluding Estrangin, 1983)
found:
Aulagnier (1985) Patients with Opium C9, Placebo Global Odds ratio favoured  A significant difference between
SR of
[Level II] postoperative ileus Raph. C9, Arnica assessment, homeopathy homeopathy and placebo in time to
homeopathy h
Quality: 40/64 C9 patient first flatulence
for multiple
(Cohen’s d -0.22; 95% CI -0.36, -0.09)k
conditions N=200
 A significant difference between
Chevrel (1984) Patients with Opium C15 Placebo Time to first Odds ratio favoured homeopathy and placebo in time to
postoperative ileus faeces homeopathy first stool
[Level II]
h (Cohen’s d -0.18; 95% CI -0.33, -0.03)k
Quality: 40/71
N=96
Estrangin (1983) Patients with Arnica C7, China Placebo Time to flatus Odds ratio showed no
[Level II] postoperative ileus C7, Pyrog C5 <2 days difference between
Quality: 40/43
N=97
Valero (1981) Patients with Raphanus C7 Placebo Time to first Odds ratio showed no
i
[Level II] postoperative ileus faeces difference between
Quality: 80/64
N=102
j
Dorfman (1992) Patients with Complex Placebo Patients Odds ratio favoured
[Level III-2] postoperative ileus without pain homeopathy

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
h
Quality: 40/36
N=80
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CI, confidence interval; NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation; SR, systematic review; WMD, weighted
mean difference.
a
b
c
d
According to Cucherat et al (2000) the same control group was used for comparisons with both active arms.
e
Identically prepared globules (without active constituent)
f
According to Barnes et al (1997) the trial included four arms with 150 patients in each arm.
g
Quality scoring system described by Kleijnen et al (1991). A score of ≥55 indicates a study of higher quality.
h
Jadad score / IV score, where the scores are expressed as a percentage of the maxium possible score. Note: the maximum possible Jadad score is 5; the maximum possible internal validity
score is 7.
i
Trials with continuous outcomes (converted to odds ratios).
j
No further information about this homeopathic remedy was provided.
k
The publication by Linde et al (1997) contained a discrepancy in the reporting of this result. The confidence interval reported in Table 5 of the publication suggested a non-significant
difference (e.g. 95% confidence interval: -0.36, 0.09), whereas the confidence interval reported in the text suggested a significant difference (e.g. 95% confidence interval: -0.36, -0.09) between
the treatment groups. An effort was made to contact the authors to clarify the discrepancy; however, no response was received. In the absence of a response from the authors it was assumed
that the results in the text of the systematic review were correct.

4.5.5 Proctocolitis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with procotocolitis was assessed in
one systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in Table 14.
The authors conducted a broad review of the efficacy of individualised homeopathy across a range of
clinical areas. One Level II study was identified that assessed the efficacy of individualised
homeopathic simillimum (C30, C100 or C200) compared with placebo or salazopyrine and
aminosalicylic acid (ASA) for the treatment of proctocolitis (Janssen et al, 1992). The outcome
measure used to assess efficacy was not clear to the authors of the systematic review; however, they
suggested that “conventional therapy seemed most effective”. Linde and Melchart (1998) stated that
the study was “totally uninterpretable” and also flawed due to very poor recruitment. Overall, the
authors of the systematic review concluded that, across all clinical conditions, any evidence
suggesting that homeopathy has an effect is “not convincing because of methodological
shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial
(medium quality; 20 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with placebo and other
therapies (salazopyrine and aminosalicylic acid) for the treatment of people with proctocolitis. LOC:
Very low.
Based on only one very small study there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about
the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo or the other therapies for the treatment of
people with proctocolitis.

Table 14 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of proctocolitis
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic review
Level of Level of population systematic review interpretation
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Janssen et al Patients with Individual Salazopyrine + Unclear “Hard to interpret – but “Well-planned trial; recruitment
Melchart (1998) (1992) proctocolitis (55% simillimum once ASA, or placebo conventional therapy seemed failed completely – totally
[Level I] [Level II] female; age 19 to in C30, C200 or most effective.” uninterpretable.”
d 69 years) C100
AMSTAR: 8/11 Quality: 4,3.5
N=20
SR of
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; ASA, aminosalicylic acid; C, centesimal; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
Quality assessed using (i) Jadad score (out of 5); (ii) internal validity score (out of 6).

4.6 Genitourinary disorders

4.6.1 Nocturnal enuresis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of nocturnal enuresis in children was assessed in
one systematic review (Huang et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 5/5). This Cochrane review aimed to
determine the effects of complementary and miscellaneous treatments (including homeopathy) in
children with nocturnal enuresis. The results identified no prospectively designed and controlled
studies that had addressed the effect of homeopathy versus no treatment or placebo or another
treatment in a literature search that was conducted in June 2010.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in children with nocturnal enuresis.
4.6.2 Men with lower urinary tract symptoms

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms was
assessed in one systematic review that formed the basis of a NICE clinical practice guideline on the
management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men (National Clinical Guideline Centre, 2010;
AMSTAR score 3/5). The results of a literature search conducted in June 2009 identified no studies
that met the inclusion criteria.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

4.7 Infections and infestations

4.7.1 Amebiasis and giardiasis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of amebiasis and giardiasis was assessed in one
systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in Table 15. Linde
and Melchart (1998) examined the efficacy of homeopathy in a number of chronic conditions and
infectious diseases, and identified one Level II study that specifically examined homeopathy as a
treatment for amebiasis and giardiasis (Solanki and Gandhi, 1995). Solanki and Gandhi (1995)
investigated the number of patients that were cured using individualised homeopathic simillimum
compared with a placebo group. The Level II study reported a better response in the homeopathy
group (58%) compared to placebo (13%), and the systematic review authors calculated a rate ratio of
4.34 (95% CI 1.13, 16.7).
Linde and Melchart (1998) reported that the methodological quality of Solanki and Gandhi (1995)
was “not assessable” and it was thought to have “major flaws”. It was suggested by the systematic
review authors that insufficient reporting, particularly the absence of any description of how
outcomes were defined/measured, may explain the “extremely positive results”. Overall, Linde and
Melchart (1998) concluded that, across all clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that
Reviewer comments
The evidence reviewer notes that the trial by Solanki and Gandhi (1995) was included in the meta-
analysis by Linde and Melchart (1998); however, the meta-analysis has not been discussed in detail in
this summary. The relevance of the pooled results to the treatment of amebiasis and giardiasis is
limited due to the fact that the trial was only one of 19 studies included in the meta-analysis, all of
which examined different clinical conditions and a variety of homeopathic remedies.
Evidence statement
(medium quality; 34 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with placebo for the
treatment of people with amebiasis and giardiasis. LOC: Very low.
the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people with amebiasis
and giardiasis.

Table 15 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of amebiasis and giardiasis
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic review interpretation
Level of Level of population systematic review
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Solanki and Patients with Individual Placebo Number cured Better response in homeopathy Comments regarding the included Level II
Melchart (1998) Gandhi (1995) amebiasis and simillimum (physician group: study:
[Level I] [Level II] giardiasis (all assessed)  Intervention group: 11/19 (58%) “Insufficient report; completely unclear
AMSTAR: 8/11 Jadad score 3
d
female; age  Control group: 2/15 (13%) how response/cure was
N=34 range 4 to 35  Rate ratio (95% CI): 4.34 (1.13, 16.7) established/defined; extremely positive
SR of years) results.”
homeopathy
for multiple Conclusion of the systematic review:
conditions A meta-analysis found an overall trend in
favour of homeopathy.
 The rate ratio was 1.62 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.23)
and the odds ratio was 2.62
 The pooled rate ratio of the methodologically
best studies was clearly smaller and not
statistically significant (1.12, 95% CI 0.87, 1.44)
 The rate ratio of the six studies published in
MEDLINE-listed journals was not significantly
different from placebo (1.22, 95% CI 0.94,
1.56)
(Note: Results of meta-analysis refer to all

clinical conditions and are not specific to
amebiasis and giardiasis)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CI, confidence interval; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.7.2 Cholera
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of cholera was assessed in one systematic review
(Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in Table 16. Linde and Melchart
(1998) examined the efficacy of homeopathy in a number of chronic conditions and infectious
diseases. The systematic review identified one Level II study (with a Jadad score of 2) that specifically
examined homeopathic remedies (one of eight pre-selected options) as a treatment for cholera,
compared with placebo (Gaucher et al, 1994). Linde and Melchart (1998) reported that “no
significant differences” were observed; however the primary outcome examined in the study was not
reported in the systematic review, so the result provides no meaningful evidence for the treatment
of cholera with homeopathy.
Linde and Melchart (1998) indicated that the Level II study by Gaucher et al (1994) was a poor-quality
trial, was poorly-reported, and contained a very limited amount of useful data. As such, they
excluded the trial from their meta-analysis. Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998) concluded that, across
all clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that homeopathy has an effect over placebo is “not
convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
Reviewer comments
The most informative finding presented by Linde and Melchart (1998) was that there were “no
significant differences”; however, it was unclear to the evidence reviewer whether the null result
alluded to differences within the homeopathy arm (from baseline to follow-up) or differences
between treatment arms (homeopathy versus placebo). The evidence reviewer made the assumption
that the results referred to an absence of significant differences between the homeopathy and
placebo treatment arms.
Evidence statement
quality; 44 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with
cholera. LOC: Very low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people
with cholera.

Table 16 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of cholera
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported Systematic review interpretation
a
Level of Level of evidence population in the systematic
a c
evidence Quality review
b
Quality Sample size
Linde and Gaucher et al (1994) Patients Most indicated Placebo Not reported No significant Interpretation of the included Level II study:
Melchart (1998) [Level II] with cholera homeopathic differences Due to insufficient reporting, a reliable and valid
d
[Level I] Jadad score 2 remedy chosen assessment of this trial was not possible
e from 8
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=44
preselected Conclusion of the systematic review:
SR of options A meta-analysis found an overall trend in favour
homeopathy for of homeopathy.
multiple  The rate ratio was 1.62 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.23)
conditions and the odds ratio was 2.62
 The pooled rate ratio of the methodologically
best studies was clearly smaller and not
statistically significant (1.12, 95% CI 0.87, 1.44)
different from placebo (1.22, 95% CI 0.94, 1.56)
(Note: results of meta-analysis refer to all clinical

conditions and are not specific to cholera)
a
b
c
d
e
Number included not clear; 44 is the number of participants analysed.

4.7.3 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with HIV was assessed in one
systematic review (Mills et al, 2005; AMSTAR score 8/10) as summarised in Table 17. This systematic
review aimed to assess the effectiveness of complementary therapies, including homeopathy, for HIV
and HIV-related symptoms. Two poor-quality Level II studies were included in the review that used
homeopathic regimens as the intervention. Rastogi (1999) examined the effect of an unspecified
homeopathic treatment on CD4 cell count in HIV-positive patients. It was reported that “in the
persistent generalised lymphadenopathy group, there is a significant difference in CD4 cell count
before and after the treatment. There was no change in placebo group and asymptomatic HIV
infection”. Mills et al (2005) noted that there were concerns about the conduct of this Level II study
and that there were potential fatal flaws related to ethical concerns. Struwe (1993) investigated the
effect of homeopathic dronabinol on the weight, body fat, and distress of HIV-positive patients. The
study found a significant increase in body fat (p=0.04) and a significant decrease in symptom stress
(p=0.04) in the treatment group compared with placebo. However, the systematic review noted that
Stuwe (1993) was limited by a small study size with large dropouts in both groups; a total of seven
patients (58% of participants) dropped out of the trial. Mills et al (2005) thus concluded that there is
no good-quality evidence to support the use of homeopathy as a treatment for HIV.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified two randomised controlled trials (poor quality;
12 and 100 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with
human immunodeficiency virus.
These studies are of insufficient quality and size to warrant further consideration of their findings.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with human
immunodeficiency virus.

Table 17 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of HIV
Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic review
Level of Level of systematic review interpretation
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Mills et al Rastogi (1999) HIV-positive patients, Homeopathy – not Placebo CD4 cell Significant difference in cell count There is no good-quality
(2005) [Level II] including 71 men and specific count before and after treatment in the PGL evidence to support the
[Level I] Poor quality 29 women. Age range group. No change in placebo and use of homeopathy in
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=100 18-50 years asymptomatic HIV group the HIV community.
Struwe (1993) HIV-positive patients, Dronabinol (delta-9- Placebo Body fat Significantly increase body fat (1%,
SR of CAM for
[Level II] mean age 38.0 tetrahydrocannabinol) p=0.04) in the treatment group
HIV
Poor quality (SD=7.3) compared with the control group
N=12
Symptom Significantly decreased symptom stress
distress (p=0.04) in the treatment group
compared with the control group
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; PGL, persistent generalised
lymphadenopathy; SD, standard deviation; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c

4.7.4 Influenza-like illness

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of influenza-like illness was assessed in three
systematic reviews (Bellavite et al, 2011; Cucherat et al, 2000; Mathie et al, 2012) as summarised in
Table 18 and Table 19. In total, the systematic reviews included four Level II studies (Table 18).
Table 18 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of influenza or influenza-like illness
Systematic reviews
Mathie et al (2012) Bellavite et al (2011) Cucherat et al (2000)
Papp et al (1998)
  
[Level II]
Ferley et al (1989)
  
Study IDs
[Level II]
Casanova and Gerard (1988)

 
[Level II]
Casanova et al (1984)

[Level II]
Mathie et al (2012) (AMSTAR score 9/11) undertook a Cochrane review of homeopathic Anas
barbariae 200k (Oscillococcinum®) for influenza-like illness. The review provided an update of earlier
work completed by Vickers and Smith (2006). Four Level II studies (Casanova and Gerard, 1988;
Casanova et al, 1984; Ferley et al, 1989; Papp et al, 1998) were identified and included in the review,
all of which treated patients with various regimens of homeopathic Anas barbariae or placebo. The
studies reported efficacy based on a wide array of outcomes, including the presence of fever, cough,
spinal pain, muscle pain, headache, and fitness for work at various time points. Mathie et al (2012)
reported differences between the treatment arms using relative risks or mean differences, where
appropriate. In the study reported by Papp et al (1998), the relative risk significantly favoured
homeopathy according to “no spinal pain at 48 hours” (p=0.030); “no muscle pain at 48 hours”
(p=0.010); “no articular pain at 48 hours” (p=0.0090); and “use of concomitant medication during the
trial” (p=0.020). Significant inter-group differences were not reported for any other outcomes
(measures of headache, backache, physician-assessed symptoms and fitness for work).
An earlier study by Ferley et al (1989) also examined the efficacy of homeopathic Anas barbariae
compared to placebo. No significant inter-group differences were found for medications used for
cough or coryza and the prevalence of antibiotic use; however, the relative risk estimates
significantly favoured homeopathy based on “absence of symptoms at 48 hours”, stratified by
patient age (RR 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14, 3.43) and symptom severity (RR 1.65; 95% CI
1.02, 2.65). Similarly, the relative risk estimate significantly favoured homeopathy in terms of
medication used for pain or fever (p=0.048).
Mathie et al (2012) only reported one outcome from the Level II study conducted by Casanova and
Gerard (1988). The mean difference between the homeopathic Anas barbariae and placebo groups
on that outcome (temperature at 48 hours) significantly favoured homeopathy (p<0.00001).
Similarly, the majority of results reported in the study by Casanova et al (1984) significantly favoured
homeopathic Anas barbariae: “no fever at 48 hours” (p=0.00061), “no general aches at 48 hours”

(p=0.0072), and “no day cough at 48 hours” (p=0.0076). No significant difference was found between
the treatment groups based on night cough at 48 hours.
Mathie et al (2012) conducted a meta-analysis in which the results of the individual trials were
pooled (Table 20). Pooled estimates that included data from at least two Level II studies were
provided for five outcomes: patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 48 hours; no chills at 48 hours;
patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 3 days; patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 4 days;
and patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 5 days. Significant differences between homeopathic
Anas barbariae and placebo were found on three of the outcomes, two of which had no significant
heterogeneity between the included trials (patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 48 hours,
p=0.0014; patient-assessed absence of symptoms at 3 days, p=0.020). Based on the individual study
results and the results of the meta-analyses, Mathie et al (2012) concluded that there is “insufficient
good evidence to enable robust conclusions” about the efficacy of homeopathic Anas barbariae in
the treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. In addition, the authors stated that the results
do not preclude the possibility of a clinical effect; however, they concluded that the evidence for the
efficacy of homeopathic Anas barbariae is not compelling, based on the low quality of the included
studies.
Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) conducted a broad review of recent advances in
homeopathy and immunology across a range of clinical areas. Three studies (all discussed above)
were identified and included in the review: Casanova and Gerard (1988), Ferley et al (1989) and Papp
et al (1998). The authors of the systematic review did not provide results that were specific to each
of the outcomes assessed in the trials (as presented by Mathie et al, 2012) and did not provide p-
values to support claims of significance. However, the overall conclusion made by Bellavite et al
(2011) was that there was “good positive evidence” from three Level II studies for the use of Anas
barbariae 200K in the treatment of patients with influenza-like symptoms.
disease in humans”. The review included two Level II studies (Papp et al, 1998; Ferley et al, 1989),
and reported “significant differences” between the treatment arms in favour of the homeopathy
groups over placebo in both trials. Cucherat et al (2000) only reported one outcome for the study by
Papp et al (1998) which was a single variable of “rate of patients affected and duration of disease”;
however, as the way in which those outcomes were combined into one measure was not clear, the
validity of the results are questionable. Although the authors of the systematic review did not
provide a conclusion that was specific to homeopathy in influenza patients, they did conclude that
overall, across the clinical conditions, there is “insufficient evidence to conclude that homeopathy is
clinically effective” due to the low methodological quality of the included trials.
Reviewer comments
The systematic review by Mathie et al (2012) did not provide overall quality assessment scores for the
included studies, yet measures of internal validity were assessed and documented. Two of the
included studies (Casanova et al 1984; Casanova and Gerard 1988) had an “unclear risk of bias” due
to the fact that details relating to allocation concealment, random sequence generation, and blinding

of participants and outcome assessors were not reported. In addition, the reporting of outcome data
was not complete in either of the studies.
Similarly, Ferley et al (1989) did not provide any details about random sequence generation,
allocation concealment or blinding. Papp et al (1998) did provide information regarding
randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and was deemed to have a low
risk of bias on those measures. However, the risk of bias was unclear for the blinding of outcome
assessment and the reporting of outcome data was incomplete.
As a result, the evidence reviewer supports the conclusion by Mathie et al (2012) that the evidence for
the efficacy of homeopathic Anas barbariae is not compelling based on the low quality of the included
studies.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified four randomised controlled trials (quality
not reported; total of 1259 participants, range: 100-487) that compared homeopathy (Anas
barbariae) with placebo for the treatment of people with influenza-like illness.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with influenza-like illness.

Table 19 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of influenza-like illness
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Mathie et al Papp et al (1998) Patients in Oscillococcinum® Placebo Fitness for work at 2 No significant difference “There is insufficient good
(2012) [Level II] primary care 3 times a day for days (RR 1.80; 95% CI 0.99-3.26) evidence to enable robust
[Level I] Quality score not with influenza- 3 days conclusions to be made
like symptoms Fitness for work at 4 No significant difference about Oscillococcinum in
AMSTAR: 9/11 reported
 mean age 35 days (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.30) the treatment of influenza
N=372
years and influenza-like illness.
SR of No headache at 48 No significant difference
homeopathy Our findings do not rule out
hours (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.88-1.63)
for influenza the possibility that
No backache at 48 No significant difference Oscillococcinum could have
hours (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00-1.61; a clinically useful treatment
p=0.05) effect but, given the low
quality of the eligible
No spinal pain at 48 Favours homeopathy (RR 1.27; studies, the evidence is not
hours 95% CI 1.02-1.58; p=0.030) compelling. There was no
evidence of clinically
No muscle pain at 48 Favours homeopathy (RR 1.47; important harms due to
hours 95% CI 1.10-1.97; p=0.010) Oscillococcinum.”
No articular pain at 48 Favours homeopathy (RR 1.40;
hours 95% CI 1.09-1.80; p=0.0090)
Improvement in No significant difference (RR

symptoms at 48 hours 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.18)
– physician
assessment
Absence of symptoms No significant difference

at 48 hours – (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.79-2.06)
physician assessment
Increased use of Favours homeopathy (RR 0.61;

concomitant 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p=0.020)
medication during trial

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ferley et al Participants in Oscillococcinum® Placebo Absence of symptoms Favours homeopathy (RR 1.98;
(1989) primary care twice a day for 5 at 48 hours – patient 95% CI 1.14-3.43; p-value not
[Level II] with a complaint days assessment by age reported)
Quality score not of influenza-like (12-29 yr; 30+ yr)
reported illness
 aged 12 years or
Absence of symptoms Favours homeopathy (RR 1.65;
N=487 at 48 hours – patient 95% CI 1.02-2.65; p-value not
older (mean age
approx. 34 years) assessment by reported)
 rectal severity of symptoms
temperature (severe; mod to
above 38°C severe)
Medication used for Favours homeopathy (RR 0.82;

pain or fever 95% CI 0.67-1.00; p=0.048)
Medication used for No significant difference (RR

cough or coryza 0.96; 95% CI 0.76-1.21)
Antibiotics used No significant difference (RR

0.87; 95% CI 0.47-1.62)
Casanova and Patients Oscillococcinum® Placebo Temperature at 48 Favours homeopathy

Gerard (1988) complaining of twice a day for 3 hours (MD -0.50; 95% CI -0.67, -0.33;
[Level II] influenza to 4 days p<0.00001)
Quality score not  average age 44
reported years in
intervention
N=300
group; 38 years
placebo
Casanova et al Patients with Oscillococcinum®, Placebo No fever at 48 hours Favours homeopathy (RR 1.98;
(1984) influenza-like 4 doses in over 2 95% CI 1.34-2.92; p=0.00061)
[Level II] illness days at 6-hour
No rhinitis at 48 hours No significant difference

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Quality score not  onset <48 hours intervals (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.66-2.70)
reported previously
N=100  average age No general aches at 48 Favours homeopathy (RR 1.73;
approx. 42 years hours 95% CI 1.16-2.59; p=0.0072)
No night cough at 48 No significant difference (RR

hours 1.44; 95% CI 0.73-2.84)
No day cough at 48 Favours homeopathy (RR 2.00;

hours 95% CI 1.20-3.31; p=0.0076)
Bellavite et al Papp et al (1998) Patients with Oscillococcinum NR Evaluation of Statistically significant There is “good positive
(2011) [Level II] influenza-like (Anas barbariae symptoms after reduction of symptoms after 48 evidence” from three Level
[Level I] Quality score not symptoms 200k) 1 dose, 3 treatment hours in the homeopathy group II studies for the use of Anas
AMSTAR: 5/10 reported times per day for barbariae 200K in the
N=372 3 days treatment of influenza-like
SR of symptoms
Ferley et al Patients with Oscillococcinum NR Healing rate at 48 Clinical healing after 48 hours
homeopathy
(1989) influenza-like (Anas barbariae hours after diagnosis and rate of temperature
for multiple
[Level II] symptoms 200k) 5 doses, based on rectal reduction better in the
conditions
Quality score not one every 12 temperature and two homeopathy group
reported hours of the following:
N=487 headache, stiffness,
lumbar pain, articular
ache, shivering
Casanova and Patients with Oscillococcinum NR Temperature, In the homeopathy group:

Gerard (1988) influenza-like (Anas barbariae shivering and myalgia faster temperature reduction,
[Level II] symptoms 200K), one dose significantly less shivering and
Quality score not morning and less myalgia after 4 days
reported evening for 3-4
N=300 days
Cucherat et al Papp et al (1998) Patients with Oscillococcinum Placebo Multiple endpoint: Significant difference in favour “There is some evidence
(2000) [Level II] influenza-like rate of patients of homeopathy (p=0.0257) that homeopathic
affected and duration treatments are more

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
[Level I] Quality score not syndromes of disease effective than placebo;
d
AMSTAR: 10/11 reported however, the strength of
N=372 this evidence is low because
SR of of the low methodological
Ferley et al Patients with Fixed, Placebo Recovery rate within Significant difference in favour quality of the trials. Studies
homeopathy
(1989) influenza-like Oscillococcinum 48 hours of treatment of homeopathy (p=0.032) of high methodological
for multiple
[Level II] syndromes quality were more likely to
conditions
Quality score not be negative than the lower
d
reported quality studies. Further high
N=487 quality studies are needed
to confirm these results.”
“It is clear that the strength

of available evidence is
insufficient to conclude that
homeopathy is clinically
effective.”
(Note: this conclusion refers

to all clinical conditions and
is not specific to influenza-
like illness)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; NR, not reported; RR, relative risk; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
Quality of included studies was not formally assessed by the authors. The authors noted that “the only criterion for quality used for selection was adequate concealment of treatment
allocation (by a suitable randomisation method)”.
e

Table 20 Pooled results presented in Mathie et al (2012)

Outcome Intervention group Control group RR (95% CI) p-value
a
n/N (%) n/N (%) Heterogeneity
Treatment: Anas barbariae versus placebo
Absence of symptoms at 48 hours – patient assessment 66/395 (16.7) 36/401 (9.0) 1.86 (1.27-2.73) Favours homeopathy (p=0.0014)
(2 Level II studies; N=796) No significant heterogeneity
2
Ferley 1989 (p=0.46; I =0%)
Papp 1998
No chills at 48 hours 136/209 (65.1) 108/209 (51.7) 1.30 (1.04-1.63) Favours homeopathy (p=0.020)
(2 Level II studies; N=418) Moderate heterogeneity
2
Casanova 1984 (p=0.19; I =42%)
Papp 1998
Absence of symptoms at 3 days (patient’s assessment) 136/395 (34.4) 109/401 (27.2) 1.27 (1.03-1.56) Favours homeopathy (p=0.020)
2
Ferley 1989 (p=0.94; I =0%)
Papp 1998
Absence of symptoms at 4 days (patient’s assessment) 223/395 (56.5) 203/401 (50.6) 1.11 (0.98-1.27) No significant difference (p=0.10)
2
Ferley 1989 (p=0.88; I =0%)
Papp 1988
Absence of symptoms at 5 days (patient’s assessment) 277/395 (70.1) 266/401 (66.3) 1.06 (0.96-1.16) No significant difference (p=0.25)
2
Ferley 1989 (p=0.94; I =0%)
Papp 1988
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.
a 2 2 2
Heterogeneity defined as follows: (i) no significant heterogeneity if Phet>0.1 and I <25%; (ii) mild heterogeneity if I <25%; moderate heterogeneity if I between 25-50%; substantial
2
heterogeneity I >50%.

4.7.5 Malaria
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of malaria was assessed in one systematic review
(Linde and Melchart, 1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in Table 21. Linde and Melchart
(1998) examined the efficacy of homeopathy in a number of chronic conditions and infectious
diseases, and identified one Level II study (Jadad score of 2) that specifically examined homeopathy
as a treatment for malaria (van Erp and Brands, 1996). Van Erp and Brands (1996) compared the
number of patients assessed as “globally improved” between those treated with chloroquine and
those treated with individualised homeopathic simillimum. No Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2
studies were identified that compared homeopathy to placebo for the treatment of malaria. In Van
Erp and Brands (1996), a similar improvement was reported in the homeopathy and chloroquine
groups (83% and 72% of patients, respectively); the statistical significance of the result was not
reported. Linde and Melchart (1998) concluded that the result “seemed promising”; however the
study was excluded from their meta-analysis due to methodological flaws, including “insufficient
description of outcome measurement”.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with placebo for the treatment of people with
malaria.
One systematic review of medium quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (poor
quality; 74 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with chloroquine for the treatment
of people with malaria. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one small poor quality study there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to chloroquine for the treatment of
people with malaria.

Table 21 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of malaria
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported Systematic review interpretation
Level of Level of population in the systematic
a a
evidence evidence review
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and van Erp and Patients with Individual Chloroquine Number of Similar response in Comments about the included Level II study:
Melchart (1998) Brands (1996) malaria attack simillimum patients both groups. “The trial of van Erp and Brands (1996) on malaria
[Level I] [Level II] (57% female) assessed Intervention group: seems promising, but the reporting in the study is
d
AMSTAR: 8/11 Jadad score 2 globally as 25/30 (83%); Control inadequate.”
N=74 improved group: 18/25 (72%).
SR of Conclusions of the systematic review:
homeopathy for Significance of inter- A meta-analysis found an overall trend in favour of
multiple group differences not homeopathy.
conditions reported  The rate ratio was 1.62 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.23) and
the odds ratio was 2.62
 The pooled rate ratio of the methodologically best
studies was clearly smaller and not statistically
significant (1.12, 95% CI 0.87, 1.44)
different from placebo (1.22, 95% CI 0.94, 1.56)
(Note: results of meta-analysis refer to all clinical

conditions and are not specific to malaria)
a
b
c
d

4.7.6 Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with recurrent vulvovaginal
candidiasis was assessed in one systematic review (Simonart et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 8/10) as
summarised in Table 22. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of
homeopathic treatments in dermatology. For the recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis indication, one
relevant Level II study was identified. Witt et al (2009) investigated the effect of individually selected
homeopathic remedies compared with conventional therapy (itraconazole) in women with recurrent
vulvovaginal candidiasis. No Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2 studies were identified that compared
homeopathy to placebo. In Witt et al (2009) all of the measured outcomes found statistically
significant differences in favour of conventional treatment; women treated by the conventional
therapy had a significantly lower level of discomfort (p<0.001), were significantly more satisfied
(p<0.0001) and reached a culture-free status earlier than women treated by homeopathy (p<0.0001).
Simonart et al (2011) noted, however, that the study had some limitations including a high dropout
rate (53% of participants) and blinding was uncertain. Overall, the authors concluded that “the
hypothesis that any dermatological condition responds convincingly better to homeopathic
treatment than to placebo or other control interventions is not supported by evidence”.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with placebo for the treatment of women with
recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis.
One systematic review of medium quality identified one medium-sized randomised controlled trial
(quality not reported; 150 participants) that compared homeopathy with itraconazole for the
treatment of women with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. LOC: Low.
Based on only one study of unknown quality there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to itraconazole for the treatment of
women with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis.

Table 22 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
a
Level of Level of evidence population systematic review
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Simonart et al, Witt et al, 2009 Women with Individually Conventional Culture-free Conventional therapy group “The hypothesis that any
2011 [Level II] recurrent selected therapy status reached a culture-free status dermatological condition responds
[Level I] Quality not specified vulvovaginal homeopathic (itraconazole) significantly earlier than convincingly better to homeopathic
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=150 candidiasis remedies for homeopathy group (p<0.0001) treatment than to placebo or other
12 months  9/23 in homeopathy group and 18/23 control interventions is not supported
in conventional therapy group by evidence.”
SR of homeopathy
for multiple Level of Significantly lower level of
conditions discomfort discomfort in conventional (Note: this conclusion refers to all
therapy group (p<0.001) clinical conditions and is not specific
 VAS score 36.8 in homeopathy group to recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis)
and 25.1 in conventional therapy
group
Level of Conventional therapy group were

satisfaction significantly more satisfied than
homeopathy group (p<0.0001)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c

4.8 Injury, trauma and postoperative disorders

4.8.1 Acute ankle sprains
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with acute ankle sprains was assessed
in one systematic review (Cucherat et al, 2000; AMSTAR score 10/11) as summarised in Table 23.
disease in humans”. The systematic review included one Level II study (Zell, 1988) that investigated
the effect of homeopathic Traumeel ointment in patients with acute ankle sprains. The systematic
review reported that the Level II study found a significant difference (p=0.028) in composite criteria
of treatment success that favoured homeopathy over placebo. The quality of Zell (1988) was not
formally assessed by Cucherat et al (2000); however, a general comment was made about all of the
included studies that “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality
of the trials”. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is
insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of good quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (quality not
reported; 69 participants) that compared homeopathy (Traumeel) with placebo for the treatment of
people with acute ankle sprains. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one small study of unknown quality there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a
with acute ankle sprains.

Table 23 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of acute ankle sprains
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported Systematic review
Level of Level of population in the systematic interpretation
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Cucherat et al Zell (1988) Patients with Traumeel Ointment base Composite criteria Significant difference “It is clear that the strength of
(2000) [Level II] acute ankle ointment without active of treatment in favour of available evidence is insufficient
[Level I] Quality not sprains constituent success homeopathy to conclude that homeopathy is
AMSTAR: 10/11 specified (p=0.028) clinically effective.”
d
N=69
SR of (Note: this conclusion refers to all
homeopathy for clinical conditions and is not
multiple specific to ankle sprains)
conditions
a
b
c
d
Number of participants refers to the number who were evaluated. The number randomised was not reported.

4.8.2 Acute trauma

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of acute trauma was assessed in one systematic
review as summarised in Table 24 (Ernst and Pittler, 1998; AMSTAR score 6/10). The systematic
review examined the effect of homeopathic Arnica in treating a number of clinical conditions, and
included one Level III-2 study (Gibson et al, 1991) (with a Jadad score of 2) that assessed the effect of
homeopathic Arnica on patients with acute trauma. The quality of Gibson et al (1991) was judged to
be relatively poor by Ernst and Pittler (1998). Four outcomes were assessed in the Level III-2 study,
namely pulse rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure and subjective symptoms (not specified). No
evidence of any statistically significant benefit was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, the
authors of the systematic review concluded that there is no evidence from “methodologically sound
placebo-controlled trials” to indicate that homeopathic Arnica is clinically superior to placebo for any
of the clinical conditions examined.
Reviewer comments
A major flaw of the systematic review by Ernst and Pittler (1998) was poor reporting; however, it was
unclear whether the authors of the included trial poorly-reported their findings, or whether the results
were poorly conveyed by the systematic review authors. For example, Ernst and Pittler (1998)
indicated that there were “no significant differences” across the four outcomes, although it was
unclear whether the significance was referring to differences between treatment arms (homeopathy
versus placebo), or within treatment arms (from baseline to follow-up). Based on the author’s overall
conclusions it was assumed that the lack of significance referred to a lack of inter-group differences.
Interpretation of the results by the evidence reviewer was also limited by the fact that the systematic
review authors did not present any numerical data or p-values to support their conclusions about
homeopathy and acute trauma. Again, it was unclear to the evidence reviewer whether the numerical
values were omitted from the systematic review, or not available in the included studies.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified one very small prospectively designed, non-
randomised controlled study (poor quality; 20 participants) that compared homeopathy (Arnica) with
placebo for the treatment of people with acute trauma. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one very small poor quality study is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion
about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people with acute
trauma.

Table 24 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of acute trauma
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic review
Level of Level of population the systematic review interpretation
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst and Pittler Gibson et al Orthopaedic Arnica 30. Placebo Pulse rate No significant difference “The hypothesis claiming that
(1998) (1991) patients for the Frequency and dose homeopathic Arnica is clinically
[Level III-2] treatment of of medication not Blood pressure No significant difference effective beyond a placebo
[Level I/III]
d
AMSTAR: 6/10 Jadad score 2 acute trauma stated. Respiratory rate No significant difference effect is not based on
N=20 methodologically sound
SR of Subjective symptoms No significant difference placebo-controlled trials.”
homeopathy for
multiple (Note: this conclusion refers to
conditions all clinical conditions and is not
specific to acute trauma)
a
b
c
d

4.8.3 Mild traumatic brain injury

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with mild traumatic brain injury was
assessed in two systematic reviews (Davidson et al, 2011; Linde and Melchart, 1998) as summarised
in Table 25. Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a systematic review which
examined the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of psychiatric conditions. One good-
quality Level II study (Chapman et al, 1999) was identified that examined the effect of individualised
homeopathy compared with placebo in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. The Level II study
reported a significant improvement in functional assessment in favour of homeopathy (p-value not
reported) compared with placebo. Davidson et al (2011) concluded that there were “weakly positive
results in favour of homeopathy for mild traumatic brain injury”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) performed a systematic review that examined the
efficacy of individualised homeopathy on a variety of clinical conditions. The authors identified an
earlier publication of the same Level II study (Chapman et al, 1997) that also reported that
homeopathy was “significantly superior” to placebo for the treatment of mild traumatic brain injury.
As the study was only available as an abstract at the time of the 1998 systematic review, no details
regarding the specific outcomes that were used to measure efficacy were provided. In addition, no
p-values were reported in order to support the claim of “significance”. Overall, Linde and Melchart
(1998) concluded that, across all clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that homeopathy has an
effect over placebo is “not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (good
quality; 61 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with
mild traumatic brain injury. LOC: Low.
effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people with mild traumatic
brain injury.

Table 25 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of mild traumatic brain injury
a
Level of Level of evidence population the systematic review interpretation
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Davidson et al Chapman et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Multivariate analysis of Significant improvement Weakly positive results in
(2011) (1999) mild traumatic homeopathy variance for functional favouring homeopathy favour of homeopathy for
[Level I] [Level II] brain injury assessment (p=NR) mild traumatic brain injury
AMSTAR: 8/10 Good quality
d
N=61
SR of
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
Linde and Chapman et al Patients with Best-fitting from Placebo Unclear “Homeopathy significantly No overall conclusions were
e
Melchart (1998) (1997) mild traumatic 18 predefined superior” provided about the efficacy
[Level I] [Level II] brain injury homeopathic of homeopathy in patients
f remedies with mild traumatic brain
AMSTAR: 8/11 Quality not assessed
N=50 injury
SR of
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
50 participants completed the study.
e
Chapman et al (1997) is an abstract and refers to the same study that was later reported in Chapman et al (1999) and included in the systematic review by Davidson et al (2011).
f
The quality of the study was not assessed, as it was available as an abstract only.

4.8.4 Postoperative pain-agitation syndrome

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with postoperative pain-agitation
syndrome was assessed in two systematic reviews (Altunc et al, 2007; Cucherat et al, 2000) as
summarised in Table 26. Both systematic reviews included the same Level II study (Alibeu and Jobert,
1990).
disease in humans”. Altunc et al (2007) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review to
assess the efficacy of homeopathy in nine childhood and adolescent conditions, including
postoperative pain-agitation syndrome. The Level II study by Alibeu and Jobert (1990) investigated
the effect of homeopathic aconite in 50 patients with postoperative pain-agitation syndrome. Both
systematic reviews reported that the Level II study found a significant difference in sedation of
agitation 15 minutes after operation that favoured homeopathy over placebo. Altunc et al (2007)
noted that the “beneficial effects” for homeopathy in the treatment of postoperative agitation
“require independent replication”. The quality of the Level II study was not specified by Cucherat et
al (2000). Altunc et al (2007) graded Alibeu and Jobert (1990) a Jadad score of 2. Overall, Altunc et al
(2007) concluded that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or
preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not
convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”. Cucherat et al (2000) concluded “it is
clear that the strength of available evidence is insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically
effective”.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium to good quality identified one small randomised controlled trial
(poor quality; 50 participants) that compared homeopathy (Aconite) with placebo for the treatment
of people with postoperative pain-agitation syndrome. LOC: Very low.
with postoperative pain-agitation syndrome.

Table 26 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of postoperative pain-agitation syndrome
Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported Systematic review
Level of Level of in the systematic interpretation
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Altunc et al Alibeu and Jobert Patients with Aconite, dose not reported, Placebo Sedation of Significant difference “The evidence from rigorous
(2007) (1990) postoperative pain- administered at least once, agitation (within (p<0.05) clinical trials of any type of
[Level I] [Level II] agitation syndrome to be repeated as many 15 minutes of therapeutic or preventive
d  Mean age 6 months-14 times as necessary operation) intervention testing
N=50 years homeopathy for childhood
 72% male and adolescence ailments is
SR of
 Concomitant treatment: not convincing enough for
homeopathy Halothane (1.5%), nitric
for multiple recommendations in any
oxide, Alimemazine (1
conditions condition.”
mg/kg), methohexital (25
mg/kg intrarectally)
is not specific to
postoperative pain-agitation
syndrome)
Cucherat et al Alibeu and Jobert Patients with Aconite 4 °C Placebo Sedation of Significant difference “It is clear that the strength
(2000) (1990) postoperative pain- agitation (within in favour of of available evidence is
[Level I] [Level II] agitation syndrome 15 minutes of homeopathy insufficient to conclude that
AMSTAR: Quality not operation) (p=0.002) homeopathy is clinically
10/11 specified effective.”
N=50
SR of (Note: this conclusion refers
homeopathy to all clinical conditions and
for multiple is not specific to
conditions postoperative pain-agitation
syndrome)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c

d

4.9 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

4.9.1 Ankylosing spondylitis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis was assessed in one
systematic review (Bellavite et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 5/10) as summarised in Table 27. The authors
conducted a broad review of recent advances in homeopathy and immunology across a range of
clinical areas. One Level II study was identified that assessed the efficacy of homeopathy compared
to placebo in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (Schirmer et al, 2000). The intervention group
received intramuscular treatment with a combination of low homeopathic potencies of Formica rufa
and the patient’s own blood. No significant differences were found between the homeopathy and
placebo groups, based on a questionnaire on arthritis and a general assessment by a physician. The
quality of the study by Schirmer et al (2000) was not formally assessed by the authors of the
systematic review. Bellavite et al (2011) concluded that there was “negative scientific evidence” (i.e.
a lack of evidence of benefit) for Formica rufa 6X in ankylosing spondylitis.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of poor quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (quality not
reported; 104 participants) that compared homeopathy (Formica rufa) with placebo for the
treatment of people with ankylosing spondylitis. LOC: Very low.
with ankylosing spondylitis.

Table 27 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Schirmer et al Patients with Intramuscular Placebo (injection Questionnaire on No difference There is “negative scientific
(2011) (2000) ankylosing treatment with a of saline) arthritis and general compared to placebo evidence” (i.e. lack of
[Level I] [Level II] spondylitis combination of low physician assessment evidence of benefit)
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality result not homeopathic regarding the efficacy of
reported potencies of Formica rufa 6X in patients
SR of N=104 Formica rufa and with ankylosing spondylitis
homeopathy the patient’s own
for multiple blood
conditions
a
b
c

4.9.2 Chronic polyarthritis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chronic polyarthritis was assessed in one
conducted a broad review of recent advances in homeopathy and immunology across a range of
clinical areas. One Level II study was identified that assessed the efficacy of homeopathy compared
to placebo in patients with chronic polyarthritis (Wiesenauer and Gaus, 1991). Efficacy was assessed
based on several outcomes: inflammation markers, functional indexes, use of ‘standard’ drugs, and a
general assessment. The Level II study reported remarkable improvement in symptoms in both
groups; however, according to Bellavite et al (2011), “the result was a significant efficacy of the
homeopathy remedy” when consumption of antirheumatic and analgesic drugs and the assessment
of pain by the patient were combined into a single outcome variable. Bellavite et al (2011) concluded
that overall there were slightly better outcomes for homeopathy (based on one Level II study of
unknown quality).
Reviewer comments
The evidence reviewer cannot comment on the quality of the one included Level II study, as it was not
formally assessed by Bellavite et al (2011). It was also unclear to the evidence reviewer how the
individual outcomes were combined into a single outcome variable and whether the grouping of
outcomes into a single measure was the intention of Wiesenauer and Gaus (1991) at the beginning of
the study or whether it was a post-hoc analysis.
It was assumed from the results provided by Bellavite et al (2011) that the “significant efficacy” of the
combined measure in the homeopathy group referred to a significant difference over the placebo
group, rather than a change from baseline; however, this was unclear from the poor wording of the
results.
Evidence statement
reported; 111 participants) that compared homeopathy (Rheumaselect) with placebo for the
treatment of people with chronic polyarthritis. LOC: Very low.
with chronic polyarthritis.

Table 28 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chronic polyarthritis
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic
Level of Level of population systematic review review
a a
evidence evidence interpretation
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Wiesenauer and Patients with Homeopathic Placebo Inflammation markers, A remarkable improvement in Overall slightly
(2011) Gaus (1991) chronic preparation functional indexes, use symptoms was reported for both better outcomes in
d
[Level I] [Level II] polyarthritis Rheumaselect of ‘standard’ drugs, groups. However, when the homeopathy
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality result not general assessment consumption of antirheumatic and group
reported analgesic drugs and the assessment
SR of N=111 of pain by the patient were
homeopathy for combined into a single outcome
multiple variable, the result was a significant
conditions efficacy of the homeopathic
remedy.
a
b
c
d
A mixture of low potencies of Rhus toxicodendron, Bryonia, Nux vomica, Berberis, Ledum

4.9.3 Delayed-onset muscle soreness

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of DOMS was assessed in two systematic reviews
(Ernst and Barnes, 1998; Ernst and Pittler, 1998) as summarised in Table 30. In total, the systematic
reviews included three Level II studies (Jawara et al, 1997; Tveiten et al, 1991; Vickers et al, 1997)
and a series of five Level III-2 trials by the same authors (Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983a; Hildebrandt
and Eltze 1983b; Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983c; Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983d; Hildebrandt and Eltze,
1984) (Table 29). Both of the systematic reviews were of reasonable quality, although neither
performed a meta-analysis of the data.
Table 29 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of delayed-onset muscle soreness
Systematic review
Ernst and Barnes (1998) Ernst and Pittler (1998)
[Level I/III] [Level I/III]
Jarawa et al (1997)

[Level II]
Vickers et al (1997)

[Level II]
Tveiten et al (1991)
 
[Level II]
Hildebrandt and Eltze (1984)
 
Study ID
[Level III-2)
Hildebrandt and Eltze (1983a)

[Level III-2)
Hildebrandt and Eltze (1983b)

[Level III-2)
Hildebrandt and Eltze (1983c)

[Level III-2)
Hildebrandt and Eltze (1983d)

[Level III-2)
Ernst and Barnes (1998) (AMSTAR score 7/10) conducted a systematic review aimed at comparing
the efficacy of homeopathy to placebo in DOMS. Three Level II studies were identified that examined
DOMS in healthy volunteers (Jawara et al, 1997; Tveiten et al, 1991; Vickers et al, 1997). None of the
trials reported a significant difference in soreness intensity or mean muscle soreness after exercise
between the homeopathy and placebo groups. In terms of the timing or duration of soreness,
Tveiten et al (1991) reported no significant difference in soreness duration between the treatment
groups, and Vickers et al (1997) reported no significant inter-group differences based on “symptom
free days”, “days to no soreness” and “days of no medication”.
The systematic review also included five Level III-2 studies (Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983a; Hildebrandt
and Eltze 1983b; Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983c; Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983d; Hildebrandt and Eltze,
1984) that examined a variety of strengths and dosing regimens of Rhus toxicodendron or Arnica on
DOMS in female participants. All five studies measured DOMS in the participants’ arms and reported
a smaller decrease in muscle strength in at least one of the homeopathic regimens compared to

placebo; however the statistical significance of the findings were not reported. One study reported a
shorter duration of arm soreness (Hildebrandt and Eltze, 1984) and another reported less intense
soreness (Hildebrandt and Eltze 1983d) in at least one active treatment group, and in at least one
arm of the participant, compared with placebo. Again, the significance of the findings is not clear due
to the fact that p-values were not provided. As it is likely that any statistically significant findings
would have been clearly identified, it is assumed that no statistically significant inter-group
differences were achieved.
Overall, Ernst and Barnes (1998) reported that the “partly positive findings” in favour of homeopathy
were all from Level III-2 studies that had a high risk of bias. They concluded that there was “no
convincing evidence that the homeopathic remedies tested are more than placebos”.
Ernst and Pittler (1998) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a broad review of homeopathic Arnica and
included the DOMS studies by Tveiten et al (1991; Level II) and Hildebrandt and Eltze (1984; Level III-
2). No additional results were reported, and the systematic review authors concluded overall that
there is no evidence based on “methodologically sound placebo-controlled trials” that Arnica has any
clinical effect beyond that of placebo.
Reviewer comments
A major limitation of the evidence base for DOMS was low recruitment/small studies. For example,
Jawara et al (1997) calculated that a sample size of 170 would be needed to have 80% power at a 5%
level of significance; however, the study only included 36 participants.
A meta-analysis is often conducted as a means of overcoming small sample sizes and underpowered
studies; however it would have been inappropriate in this instance given the highly heterogeneous
trials. In particular, a wide variety of homeopathic remedies were used and there were also significant
differences between the trials in terms of the type and extent of exercise used to induce DOMS (for
example, bilateral upper arm muscle flexion and extension; bench-stepping exercise; or running a
marathon).
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified three randomised controlled trials (medium to
good quality; total of 143 participants, range: 36-57) and five prospectively designed, non-
randomised controlled studies (poor quality; total of 172 participants, range: 24-44) that compared
homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with delayed onset muscle soreness. The five
non-randomised controlled studies were conducted by the same research group. LOC: Low.
placebo for the treatment of people with delayed-onset muscle soreness.

Table 30 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of delayed-onset muscle soreness
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the systematic Systematic
Level of Level of population review review
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst and Jawara et al (1997) Oslo Arnica Montana D30, Placebo Soreness intensity No significant inter-group differences, but a “The partly
Barnes (1998) [Level II] Marathon 5 pills twice daily for (VAS) trend for less soreness in homeopathy positive findings
d
[Level I/III] Quality score 85 participants 5 days starting 1 day compared with placebo group in favour of
AMSTAR: 7/10 N=36 with delayed- prior to the Oslo homeopathy…
onset muscle Marathon Serum CK No significant inter-group differences, but a are based on
soreness concentrations trend for lower serum CK in homeopathy trials that were
SR of compared with placebo group
homeopathy for non-randomised
delayed-onset Vickers et al (1997) Healthy Arnica Montana 30C Placebo Mean muscle No significant inter-group differences, but a and thus are
muscle [Level II] volunteers + Rhus toxicodendron soreness (during the trend for less soreness in placebo compared open to bias, and
soreness d with delayed- 30C + sarcolactic acid 5 post-exercise days) with the homeopathy group which involve
Quality score 85
onset muscle 30C, one tablet three small numbers of
N=57 Symptom free days No significant inter-group differences
soreness times daily, one day patients.”
prior to exercise until Maximum soreness No significant inter-group differences
cessation of soreness “The results of all
score
eight clinical
Days to no soreness No significant inter-group differences trials of
homeopathy for
Days of no No significant inter-group differences delayed-onset
medication muscle soreness
Tveiten et al (1991) Healthy Arnica montana 30C Placebo Soreness intensity Intergroup differences did not approach do not provide
volunteers + Rhus toxicodendron (VAS) statistical significance (p>0.2), but trend convincing
[Level II]
d with delayed- 30C one tablet three favoured homeopathy evidence that
Quality score 60 the homeopathic
N=50 onset muscle times daily one day
soreness prior to exercise Soreness duration Intergroup differences did not approach remedies tested
statistical significance (p>0.2), but trend are more than
continuing until
cessation of soreness favoured homeopathy placebos.”
Hildebrandt and Healthy Arnica (a) D2 (b) D3 Placebo Soreness intensity No significant inter-group differences
Eltze (1984) women with (c) D4 (d) D5 (e) D6 (f)
delayed- D8, 3x16 drops daily Soreness duration Shorter duration in homeopathic group (b)
[Level III-2]
d onset muscle for 6 days post compared with placebo (both arms) and in
Quality score 38
group (c) compared with placebo (left arm

a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
N=42 soreness exercise only); p-values NR
Maximal isometric Less decrease in muscle strength in

muscle strength homeopathic group (b) vs placebo (both
arms), and in group (c) vs placebo (left arm
only); p-values NR
Serum CK NR
concentrations
Hildebrandt and Healthy Rhus toxicodendron Placebo Soreness intensity No significant inter-group differences
Eltze (1983a) women with D4, 5x10 drops daily
delayed- for 7 days post Soreness duration No significant inter-group differences
[Level III-2]
d onset muscle exercise
Quality score 38 Maximal isometric Less decrease in muscle strength in
N=28 soreness muscle strength homeopathy group vs placebo; p-value NR
Hildebrandt and Healthy Rhus toxicodendron Placebo Soreness intensity NR

Eltze (1983b) women with D4 (a) 1x50 drops
delayed- daily, (b) 3x16 drops Soreness duration NR
[Level III-2]
d onset muscle daily, (c) 5x10 drops
N=34 soreness daily, (d) 6x8 drops muscle strength homeopathic groups (a) and (d) vs placebo;
daily, for 7 days post p-value NR
exercise
Serum CK NR
concentrations
Hildebrandt and Healthy Rhus toxicodendron Placebo Soreness intensity No significant inter-group differences
Eltze (1983c) women with D4 (a) 1x5 drops
delayed- daily, (b) 3x5 drops Soreness duration No significant inter-group differences
[Level III-2]
d onset muscle daily, (c) 5x10 drops
N=24 soreness daily, for 7 days post muscle strength homeopathic groups (b) and (c) vs placebo
exercise (right arm only); p-value NR
Hildebrandt and Healthy Rhus toxicodendron Placebo Soreness intensity Less soreness in homeopathic group (c) vs
Eltze (1983d) women with (a) D2 (b) D3 (c) D4 placebo (both arms); p-value NR

a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
[Level III-2] delayed- (d) D5 (e) D6 (f) D8, Soreness duration NR
d
Quality score 38 onset muscle 3x16 drops daily for 7
N=44 soreness days post exercise
Maximal isometric Less decrease in muscle strength in

muscle strength homeopathic group (a) vs placebo (both
arms) and in group (c) compared with
placebo (right arm only); p-value NR
Serum CK Lower serum values in homeopathic group

concentrations (a) compared with placebo; p-value NR
Ernst and Pittler Tveiten et al (1991) Participants Arnica montana D30 Placebo pills Blood tests, “No significant intergroup differences but a “The hypothesis
(1998) [Level II] in the Oslo 5 pills twice daily for as per verum including serum trend for serum creatine kinase claiming that
e Marathon 5 days starting 1 day schedule creatine kinase concentrations to be lower with Arnica than homeopathic
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=36 (Norway) prior to race concentrations placebo” Arnica is clinically
effective beyond
Soreness intensity “No significant intergroup differences but a a placebo effect
SR of (VAS) trend for soreness to be lower with Arnica
homeopathy for is not based on
than placebo” methodologically
multiple
conditions Soreness duration No significant difference sound placebo-
controlled trials.”
Hildebrandt and Healthy Arnica D2, D3, D4, D5, Placebo Maximal isometric “Less decrease in muscle strength in group B
e
Eltze (1984) women for D6, D8 - 16 drops, 3 drops as per muscle strength vs placebo (both arms)” (Note: this
[Level III-2] the times a day for 6 days verum conclusion refers
e treatment of after exercise schedule Soreness intensity No significant difference
Jadad score 1 to all clinical
N=42 delayed- Soreness duration “Shorter duration of soreness in group B conditions and is
onset muscle (both arms) and C (left arm only) vs not specific to
soreness placebo”
f,g delayed-onset
muscle soreness)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CK, creatinine kinase; D, decimal; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c

d
Quality was assessed using a “pre-defined list of criteria” (further details not specified) in which a score of ≥55 indicates studies of “higher quality”.
e
f
What constitutes groups B and C were not defined by the authors.
g
Lower creatinine kinase concentration on day 6 in group C vs placebo.

4.9.4 Fibromyalgia
The effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia was assessed in seven systematic
reviews as summarised in Table 31 and Table 32. Overall, the systematic reviews included four Level
II studies (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher et al, 1989; Fisher, 1986; Relton et al, 2009). Two of the seven
reviews (Bellavite et al, 2011; Perry et al, 2010) reported results from all four Level II studies (see
Table 31). Perry et al (2010) provided the most comprehensive details of the individual study results.
Table 31 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of fibromyalgia
Study ID
Relton et al Bell et al Fisher et al Fisher
(2009) (2004) (1989) (1986)
[Level II] [Level II] [Level II] [Level II]
   
[Level I]
Davidson et al (2011)
  
[Level I]
de Silva et al (2010)
  
Systematic review
[Level I]
Perry et al (2010)
   
[Level I]
Porter et al (2010)
 
[Level I]
Baranowsky et al
(2009) 
[Level I]
Holdcraft et al (2003)

[Level I]
Perry et al (2010) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a systematic review that specifically examined the
efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Four Level II studies (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher
et al, 1989; Fisher, 1986; Relton et al, 2009) were identified, none of which were “without serious
flaws” (Perry et al, 2010). The two highest quality studies (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher et al, 1989) received
a Jadad score of 4 (Perry et al, 2010), and both reported significantly fewer tender points (or a
significantly greater improvement in tender point count) in the homeopathy group, compared to
placebo. In addition, Bell et al (2004) reported statistically significant differences in favour of
homeopathy in the following outcomes: number of patients with at least a 25% improvement in
tender point pain on palpation; Fibromyalgia Score; and Global Health Rating. Fisher et al (1989) (a
cross-over study) also reported that a significantly greater number of patients experienced improved
pain and sleep in the homeopathy group (Rhus toxicodendron) compared with placebo (p=0.0052).
However, Perry et al (2010) noted that a re-analysis of the data performed by Colquhoun (1990)
“suggested that there was no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy treatment when distribution-
free-randomisation tests were employed”.

An earlier Level II study by Fisher (1986; Jadad score 3) examined the efficacy of three homeopathic
remedies compared to placebo. The main criticisms of the trial cited by Perry et al (2010) were that
the authors did not describe the randomisation process, presented very little demographic
information on the patients, conducted the trial over a short duration, and recruited very few
patients (≤5 patients in each of the three homeopathic treatment arms). No significant differences
were reported between the three homeopathy groups and the placebo group in terms of pain and
sleep; however, the results of both outcomes significantly favoured homeopathy when the authors
re-grouped patients into those who received “poorly-indicated” homeopathic remedies and those
that received “well-indicated” treatments.
Finally, Perry et al (2010) identified a poor-quality Level II study (Jadad score 2) by Relton et al (2009)
for inclusion in their systematic review. Relton et al (2009) adopted an individually tailored
homeopathic approach (i.e. where remedy choice and potency could be altered throughout the
study). The results indicated that those in the homeopathy group achieved a significantly greater
reduction in the total Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score, compared to the “usual care” group
(p<0.01) which included patients treated with one or more of physiotherapy, aerobic exercise, anti-
inflammatory drugs, or anti-depressants. However, on all other outcomes (tender point count,
European Quality of Life Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Measure Yourself Medical
Outcome Profile, and Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire – pain score), the study found no significant
inter-group differences. Perry et al (2010) highlighted the major limitations of the Level II study by
Relton et al (2009), including the utilisation of a study design that did not control for placebo effects
and a very small sample size due to a high dropout rate in the “usual care” treatment arm. Overall,
Perry et al (2010) concluded that the “effectiveness of homeopathy as a symptomatic treatment for
fibromyalgia remains unproven”, largely due to the limited number of Level II studies and the
relatively poor scientific quality of the existing trials.
The systematic review by Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) aimed to evaluate the
effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of upper airways and ear-nose-throat ailments,
respiratory allergies, arthrorheumatic diseases and osteoarthritis. Based on the findings of three of
the included Level II studies (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher et al, 1989; Relton et al, 2009), Bellavite et al
(2011) concluded that there was “good positive evidence” for the effective treatment of fibromyalgia
with individualised homeopathy. Based on Fisher (1996), Bellavite et al (2011) concluded that there
was “negative scientific evidence” (i.e. lack of evidence of benefit) for homeopathic Arnica, Rhus
toxicodendron and Bryonia 6C for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Bellavite et al (2011) did not provide
a quality assessment of these studies.
The findings of Bellavite et al (2011) were limited by poor reporting. In many instances it was unclear
whether the positive findings were statistically significant, as p-values were rarely reported. Instead,
general statements were provided, such as “there was a better reduction of symptoms in patients
treated with homeopathy”. The one exception was the reporting of results from the study by Bell et
al (2004) as finding “significantly better outcomes” in the homeopathy patients compared to
placebo, although the exact p-values were still not clear and the specific outcomes that achieved
statistical significance were not identified.
Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) examined the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy
across a variety of chronic conditions, including fibromyalgia. Davidson et al (2011) identified three of
the same Level II studies as the systematic reviews by Perry et al (2010) and Bellavite et al (2011)

(Bell et al, 2004; Fisher 1986; Fisher et al, 1989). Bell et al (2004) was the methodologically strongest
study, scoring well in terms of methodology on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and SIGN quality assessment measures. Fisher (1986) and
Fisher et al (1989) were both given low ratings. Bell et al (2004) reported statistically significant
differences favouring homeopathy over placebo on four of the five measures presented in Davidson
et al (2011). One of those measures was the McGill Affective Pain score and was reported as p<0.01;
however this conflicts with reporting of that measure in the systematic review by Perry et al (2010),
which reported a positive but non-significant trend favouring homeopathy and a p-value of p<0.1.
Davidson et al (2011) noted that poor reporting, particularly in Fisher et al (1989) made some results
“impossible to interpret”. Beyond poor reporting, the authors of the systematic review made a
general statement that the current evidence base for homeopathy and fibromyalgia is neither
“sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently plentiful” to warrant any definite answers. However, Davidson
et al (2011) concluded that the “results do not preclude the possibility of some benefit”.
The remaining four systematic reviews (Baranowsky et al, 2009; de Silva et al, 2010; Holdcraft et al,
2003; Porter et al, 2010), assessed the efficacy of various complementary and alternative medicines
(including homeopathy) in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Due to the broad focus of the reviews, the
information pertaining specifically to the efficacy of homeopathy was limited, and no additional
outcomes or results were provided that have not been discussed above. Two of the reviews had
particularly poor reporting: Baranowsky et al (2009) (AMSTAR score 5/10) did not provide any
p-values to support claims of significance; and Porter et al (2010) (AMSTAR score 6/10) made a broad
statement that a “positive effect” was found for homeopathy, without reporting results according to
separate outcome measures.
Baranowsky et al (2009) only included one of the Level II studies (Bell et al, 2004) that was identified
by the other systematic reviews. Overall, Baranowsky et al (2009) concluded that homeopathy is a
“promising option in the treatment of fibromyalgia” and recommended further studies to confirm
the existing findings.
Porter et al (2010) included two of the Level II studies (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher et al, 1989) that were
identified by the other systematic reviews. Similarly to Baranowsky et al (2009), Porter et al (2010)
concluded that homeopathic treatment was associated with a positive effect on “diagnostic
symptoms” of fibromyalgia. However, Porter et al (2010) noted that the homeopathic treatment
regimens adopted in many of the trials did not reflect the “clinical approach used by most
practitioners” of homeopathy, which involves individually tailored treatments.
Holdcraft et al (2003) (AMSTAR score 5/10) only identified one of the studies (Fisher et al, 1989) for
inclusion in their review and was critical of the cross-over design, particularly the absence of a
wash-out period between the active and placebo interventions. Holdcraft et al (2003) also
questioned the validity of assessing the sleep and pain scores as a combined measure. Overall,
Holdcraft et al (2003) stated that there is “limited evidence” to support the use of homeopathy in
fibromyalgia due to the low quality evidence.
The review by de Silva et al (2010) (AMSTAR score 7/10) identified three of the relevant Level II
studies discussed above (Bell et al, 2004; Fisher et al, 1989; Fisher 1986) and reported that they all
found that homeopathy was associated with an improvement in pain, but were small in size. Similarly
to Holdcraft et al (2003), de Silva et al (2010) questioned the results of Fisher et al (1989), citing an
independent re-analysis that found “no firm support for the efficacy of homeopathic treatment” over

placebo (Colquhoun, 1989). De Silva et al (2010) concluded that independent replication is necessary
due to the fact that each of the three trials used different homeopathic remedies. They also stated
that publication bias is a “major concern” that needs to be considered alongside the positive results.
Reviewer comments
The general consensus across the seven systematic reviews was that Bell et al (2004) was the most
methodologically sound trial of homeopathy and fibromyalgia. The majority of the review authors
highlighted the significant methodological flaws in Fisher et al (1989). In particular, the use of a
cross-over design with no wash-out period between active and placebo treatments was noted as a
major flaw (Holdcraft et al, 2003; Perry et al, 2010). The evidence reviewer concurs that there is a
possibility that carry-over treatment effects may have confounded results in Fisher et al (1989).
In addition, two of the systematic reviews (de Silva et al, 2010; Perry et al, 2010) made reference to
an independent re-analysis of Fisher et al (1989) by Colquhoun (1990) that found “no evidence for the
efficacy of homeopathic treatment when distribution-free randomisation tests were employed”.
Evidence statement
Seven systematic reviews of poor to medium quality identified three randomised controlled trials
(poor to good quality; total of 116 participants, range: 24-62) that compared homeopathy with
placebo for the treatment of people with fibromyalgia.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with fibromyalgia.
Two systematic reviews of poor and medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled
trial (poor quality; 47 participants) that compared homeopathy with other therapies (physiotherapy,
aerobic exercise, anti-inflammatory drugs and anti-depressant medications) for the treatment of
people with fibromyalgia. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one very small study of poor quality there is no reliable evidence on which to draw a
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to the other therapies for the
treatment of people with fibromyalgia.

Table 32 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Relton et al (2009) Fibromyalgia Individualised Conventional FIQ Better reduction of symptoms in The review concluded that
(2011) [Level II] patients homeopathic treatment patients treated with homeopathy there was “good positive
[Level I] Quality not prescription compared to control; no adverse evidence” (statistically
AMSTAR: 5/10 specified effects significant evidence of benefit
N=47 from 1-2 properly randomised
SR of trials) for individualised
Bell et al (2004) Fibromyalgia Individualised Placebo Pain, motion Significantly better outcomes of the homeopathy in fibromyalgia.
homeopathy
[Level II] patients homeopathic tenderness, homeopathy group compared to
for multiple
Quality not prescription quality of life placebo  Positive evidence was
conditions
specified obtained from Level II studies
N=62 by Fisher et al (1989), Bell et al
(2004), and Relton et al (2009).
Fisher et al (1989) Fibromyalgia Rhus tox Placebo Pain symptoms Slightly positive therapeutic effect in Bellavite et al (2011) also cited
[Level II] patients (individualised) most patients in the homeopathy two reviews: one with
group versus placebo “positive evidence” for
Quality not
individualised homeopathy
specified and fibromyalgia (Baranowsky
d
N=30 et al 2009) and one with
“positive but insufficient
Fisher (1986) Fibromyalgia Arnica, Rhus tox, Placebo Pain symptoms Trend to better improvement in the evidence” (Perry et al 2010).
[Level II] patients Bryonia 6c homeopathic group, not statistically
Quality not significant The review also concluded
specified that there was “negative
N=24 scientific evidence”
(statistically significant
negative evidence (i.e. lack of
evidence of benefit) from 1 or
more Level II studies) for
Arnica, Rhus toxicodendron
and Bryonia 6C for the
treatment of fibromyalgia
 Fisher 1986 found no

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
evidence of an effect
Davidson et al Bell et al (2004) Fibromyalgia Individualised Placebo 25% Statistically significant difference Results do not preclude the
(2011) [Level II] patients homeopathy improvement between groups, favouring possibility of some benefit –
[Level I] SIGN: “good” in tender point homeopathy. Homeopathy group: efficacy was found for the
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=62 pain on 50%; Placebo: 15%; p<0.01 functional somatic syndromes
palpation group (fibromyalgia and
SR of chronic fatigue syndrome).
TPC Significant improvement compared to
homeopathy placebo (p<0.05)
for multiple “Results suggest possible
conditions McGill Significant improvement compared to utility for homeopathy.”
Affective Pain placebo (p<0.01)
score
Appraisal of Significant improvement compared to

Fibromyalgia placebo (p<0.05)
MSP No significant difference between

treatment arms
Fisher et al (1989) Fibromyalgia Rhus Placebo Unclear Positive results for homeopathy,
[Level II] patients toxicodendron 6C especially on tender points
SIGN: “poor”
d
N=30
Fisher (1986) Fibromyalgia Rhus Placebo Pain (VAS) Analysis gave significant differences
[Level II] patients toxicodendron, on pain for indicated remedy
SIGN: “poor” Bryonia alba or
Arnica montana Sleep (VAS) Analysis gave significant differences
N=24 on sleep for indicated remedy
de Silva et al Bell et al (2004) Patients with Individually Placebo Tenderness NR “There was some evidence
(2010) [Level II] fibromyalgia selected from three small studies
f
 homeopathic Tender point Significant improvement in favour of regarding three different
pain homeopathy; p-value NR

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
AMSTAR: 7/10 N=62 remedy Tender point Significant improvement in favour of homeopathic approaches.
count homeopathy; p-value NR Each demonstrated an
SR of CAM for improvement in pain in those
Quality of life Significant improvement in favour of receiving the standardised or
fibromyalgia
homeopathy; p-value NR individualised homeopathic
remedy (compared with
Global health Significant improvement in favour of placebo) and two studies
homeopathy; p-value NR demonstrated improvement
in sleep. While one of these
Depression Significant improvement in favour of trials received the lowest of
homeopathy; p-value NR all Jadad scores (Fisher, 1986),
another received the
Fisher et al (1989) Patients with R. toxicodendron Placebo Tenderness “Homeopathic treatments maximum score (Bell et al,
[Level II] fibromyalgia (6c potency) put significantly improved tenderness as 2004). The third study has
Jadad score 3
f  Only patients in up on 125 mg assessed by VAS” (p<0.005) been independently re-
N=30
d whom R. lactose taken 3 analysed and no firm support
toxicodendron times per day. Pain (VAS) “Homeopathic treatments
significantly improved pain as for the efficacy of
was positively This was a cross-
indicated after assessed by VAS” (p<0.005) homeopathic treatment as
over study with found.”
a homeopathic
consultation
treatment Sleep (VAS) “Homeopathic treatments
were included phases of 1 significantly improved sleep
month each in disturbance as assessed by VAS”
random (p<0.005)
sequence
Fisher (1986) Patients with One remedy Placebo Pain Homeopathic treatments significantly
[Level II] fibromyalgia from Arnica improved pain compared with
f montana, placebo as assessed by VAS (p<0.05)
Jadad score 1
N=24 Bryonia alba and
R. toxicodendron Sleep Homeopathic treatments significantly
(all of 6c improved sleep compared with
potency). All the placebo as assessed by VAS (p<0.05)
patients received
the same

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
treatment
throughout a 3
month period
Perry et al Relton et al (2009) Patients with Individually Usual care TPC No significant inter-group differences The effectiveness of
(2010) [Level II] fibromyalgia tailored with one or homeopathy as a
f
homeopathic more of the EuroQol No significant inter-group differences symptomatic treatment for
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=47 remedies (one 1 following: MYMOPS No significant inter-group differences fibromyalgia remains
hour baseline physiotherapy, unproven (mainly due to the
SR of interview with aerobic HADS No significant inter-group differences limited number of Level II
homeopathy homeopath exercise, anti- studies and the relatively poor
followed by four inflammatory FIQ pain scores No significant inter-group differences scientific quality of the
for
fibromyalgia 30 minute follow drugs, anti- FIQ total score Significantly greater reduction in total existing trials).
up interviews depressants score in the homeopathic group
where remedy compared to the usual care group The authors acknowledged
choice and (p<0.01) that the four included trials
potency can be were all seriously flawed. In
assessed and particular, the re-analysis of
changed Fisher et al (1989) by
Colquhoun suggested there
Bell et al (2004) Patients with 41 remedies Placebo Improvement Significantly greater improvement in
was no evidence for the
[Level II] fibromyalgia used, given as in TPC TPC in intervention group compared
f efficacy of homeopathic
Jadad score 4 LM potencies. to placebo (p<0.05)
treatment when distribution-
N=62 Remedy and
Number of Significantly more patients free randomisation tests were
dosing regimen
patients with experienced a 25% improvement in employed. He criticised Fisher
could be altered
at least a 25% the intervention group (n=13/26) for combining pain and sleep
at any time after
improvement compared to placebo (n=4/27); scores thus invalidating the
consultation with
in TPP on p=0.008 (Fisher’s exact test, two- results. Relton (2004) used a
a homeopath
palpation tailed) design that did not control for
placebo effects and was also
Fibromyalgia Significantly greater improvement in insufficiently powered due to
scores homeopathy compared to placebo a high drop-out rate in the
group (p<0.05)

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Global health Significantly greater improvement in usual care group.
rating homeopathy compared to placebo
(adjusted for group (p<0.05). At 6 months, those
anger and who stayed in the experimental group
depression) had a greater gain in global health
than the placebo-switch group
McGill Pain Greater improvement in homeopathy

Questionnaire group compared to placebo (p<0.10)
POMS Greater improvement in homeopathy

group compared to placebo (p<0.10)
Fisher et al (1989) Patients with Rhus Placebo – two Number of Significantly more patients improved
[Level II] fibromyalgia toxicodendron tablets three patients with in the intervention group (n=53)
f 6c, two tablets times daily improved pain compared to placebo (n=27);
Jadad score 4
N=30
d three times daily and sleep (pain p=0.0052
and sleep VAS
– combined
measure)
TPC Intervention group had significantly

fewer tender points (10.6) compared
e
to placebo (14.1); p<0.005
Fisher (1986) Patients with One of three Placebo – Pain No significant difference between
[Level II] fibromyalgia homeopathic twice a day intervention groups and placebo
f remedies (Rhus (p=0.19)
Jadad score 3
N=24 toxicodendron,
Arnica Montana, Pain – Significant difference between
or Bryonia) in 6c subgroup intervention and placebo groups at 2
potency twice a analysis and 3 months when those with
day “poorly indicated” homeopathic
remedies were removed, leaving only

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
those with “optimal fit” (p<0.05)
Sleep No significant difference between

intervention groups and placebo
(p=0.078)
Sleep – Significant difference between

subgroup intervention and placebo groups at 2
analysis and 3 months when those with
“poorly indicated” homeopathic
remedies were removed, leaving only
those with “optimal fit” (p<0.05)
Porter et al Bell et al (2004) Patients with Homeopathy – Placebo Physical and Positive effect reported for Both fibromyalgia studies
(2010) [Level II] fibromyalgia details not psychological homeopathy – outcomes not reported reported that homeopathic
f
[Level I] Jadad score 5 specified outcomes separately treatment had a positive
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=62 effect on diagnostic
symptoms of fibromyalgia.
Fisher et al (1989) Patients with Rhus Placebo Physical Positive effect reported for
SR of CAM for
[Level II] fibromyalgia toxicodendron outcomes, QoL homeopathy – outcomes not reported However, the treatments
multiple f
Jadad score 3 separately used in the review do to
conditions d
N=30 necessarily reflect the “clinical
approach used by most
practitioners to treat these
illnesses, which include a mix
of natural and
unconventionally used

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
medications and natural
hormones tailored to each
individual case”.
Baranowsky et Bell et al (2004) Patients with Individually Placebo (oral TPC Significant improvement in active Significant improvement in
al (2009) [Level II] fibromyalgia prescribed daily liquid) group compared to placebo; p-value active group in TPC and TP
[Level I] Quality score homeopathic NR pain on palpation, appraisal of
AMSTAR: 5/10 according to 16 remedies of daily fibromyalgia scores, global
oral liquid, TPP on Significant improvement in active health ratings and helpfulness
formal criteria:
flexibly dosed LM palpation group compared to placebo; p-value of treatment as compared to
SR of CAM for 57.5/100
potencies NR placebo group.
fibromyalgia N=62
McGill Pain NR
Questionnaire Homeopathy is a promising
option in the treatment of
Fibromyalgia Significant improvement in active fibromyalgia, although further
quality of life group compared to placebo; p-value studies are needed to confirm
scores NR the findings.
POMS NR
Global health Significant improvement in active

rating group compared to placebo; p-value
(adjusted for NR
anger and
depression)
Treatment Significant improvement in active

helpfulness group compared to placebo; p-value
rating NR
Holdcraft et al Fisher et al (1989) Patients with Rhus Placebo TPC Mean number of tender points was There is limited evidence to
(2003) [Level II] fibromyalgia toxicodendron reduced by 25% in active group. support the use of
[Level I] CONSORT score: (poison ivy) Significant improvement compared to homeopathy for fibromyalgia
AMSTAR: 5/10 10 placebo (p<0.05) due to the low quality of the
d Level II study.
N=30
Number of Significant improvement in active

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
SR of CAM for patients with compared to placebo group (p<0.05)
fibromyalgia improved pain Results limited by the fact
and sleep (pain that sleep and pain scores
and sleep VAS were not reported separately
– combined and also by the fact that there
measure) was no wash-out period
between the active and
placebo interventions.
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; FIQ,
Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; MSP, McGill Sensory Pain; NR, not reported; POMS, Profile of Mood States scale; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network quality analysis; SR,
systematic review; TP, tender point; TPC, tender point count; TPP, tender point pain; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
Level of evidence as assessed by the evidence reviewer
b
Study quality as assessed by the evidence reviewer using the AMSTAR measurement toolkit
c
Study quality as reported in the systematic review
d
Refers to the number of participants that completed the cross-over periods
e
A later re-analysis of the data (Colquhoun 1991) found that no significant treatment effects occurred after the first treatment period
f

4.9.5 Knee joint haematoma

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of knee joint haematoma was assessed in one
systematic review (Cucherat et al, 2000; AMSTAR score 10/11) as summarised in Table 33. Cucherat
et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) aimed to answer the question of “whether there is any evidence
from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is efficacious for the treatment of disease in
humans”. The systematic review identified one Level II study (Thiel, 1991) that investigated the effect
of intraarticular injections of homeopathic Traumeel R in patients with knee joint haematoma,
compared with intraarticular injections of sodium chloride. Cucherat et al (2000) reported a
significant difference in joint mobility (p=0.026) in this Level II study in favour of the homeopathy
group. The quality of Thiel (1991) was not formally assessed by Cucherat et al (2000); however, a
general comment was made about all of the included studies that “the strength of this evidence is
low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is
effective”.
Evidence statement
reported; 80 participants) that compared homeopathy (Traumeel R) with placebo for the treatment
of people with knee joint haematoma. LOC: Very low.
with knee joint haematoma.

Table 33 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of knee joint haematoma
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as Systematic review interpretation
a
Level of Level of evidence population reported in the
a c
evidence Quality systematic
b review
Quality Sample size
Cucherat et al Thiel (1991) Patients with Intraarticular Intraarticular Joint Significant “It is clear that the strength of available
(2000) [Level II] knee joint Traumeel R injections of sodium mobility difference in evidence is insufficient to conclude that
[Level I] Quality not specified haematoma chloride favour of homeopathy is clinically effective.”
d homeopathy
AMSTAR: 10/11 N=80
(p=0.026) (Note: this conclusion refers to all clinical
SR of conditions and is not specific to knee joint
homeopathy for haematoma)
multiple
conditions
a
b
c
d
73 patients were evaluated.

4.9.6 Osteoarthritis
The effectiveness of homeopathy in osteoarthritis was assessed in three systematic reviews as
summarised in Table 34 and Table 35. Overall, the systematic reviews included four Level II studies
(Nahler et al, 1998; Shealy et al, 1998; Shipley et al, 1983; van Haselen and Fisher, 2000) and one
Level III-2 study (Birnesser et al, 2003) (Table 34). The AMSTAR quality ratings of the five systematic
reviews ranged from 5/10 (Bellavite et al, 2011) to 6/10 (De Silva et al, 2011; Long and Ernst, 2001).
Table 34 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of osteoarthritis
Study ID
Van Haselen Nahler et al Shealy et al Shipley et al Birnesser et
and Fisher (1998) (1998) (1983) al (2003)
(2000) [Level II] [Level II] [Level II] [Level III-2]
[Level II]
De Silva et al (2011)
  
Systematic review
[Level I]
Long and Ernst
(2001)    
[Level I]
    
[Level I/III]
De Silva et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 6/10) provided a broad review of the efficacy of a range of
complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis. Three Level II studies
were identified that were specific to homeopathy and osteoarthritis (Shealy et al, 1998; Shipley et al,
1983; van Haselen and Fisher, 2000; median Jadad score of 3). One Level II study with three parallel
treatment arms reported that homeopathy and placebo were both less effective than fenoprofen in
terms of pain on movement and pain at rest in hip or knee osteoarthritis (Shipley et al, 1983). It is
assumed that the results were statistically significant; however, no numerical evidence was provided
in order to confirm that assumption. The authors concluded that the evidence base was
“insufficiently large” to provide conclusive evidence for or against homeopathy in osteoarthritis.
Long and Ernst (2001) (AMSTAR score 6/10) identified four Level II studies for inclusion in their
systematic review of homeopathy for the treatment of osteoarthritis (Nahler et al, 1998; Shealy et al,
1998; Shipley et al, 1983; van Haselen and Fisher, 2000). The Level II studies were of reasonable to
good quality with three scoring a Jadad score of 3 and one scoring 4. Long and Ernst (2001)
confirmed the assumption made above, that fenoprofen produced “highly statistically significant”
pain relief compared to homeopathy and placebo in Shipley et al (1983). In contrast, homeopathy
was found to be “at least as effective” as a conventional NSAID gel in van Haselen and Fisher (2000),
according to Long and Ernst (2001), and not significantly different to conventional medications
(hyaluronic acid and paracetamol) in the remaining two Level II studies (Nahler et al, 1998; Shealy et
al, 1998).
Long and Ernst (2001) reported that homeopathy was inferior to conventional medication in one trial
and not significantly different in three others. As such, they concluded that there is a “positive trend
towards the effectiveness of combination homeopathic preparations”. However, they acknowledge

that the limited evidence base precludes them from drawing “firm conclusions as to the
effectiveness of combination homeopathic remedies” for osteoarthritis.
Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) conducted a systematic review of homeopathy and
immunology in three broad clinical areas, one of which was “Arthrorheumatic diseases and
osteoarthritis”. The Level II and Level III-2 osteoarthritis studies included in this systematic review
included four previously discussed Level II studies (Nahler et al, 1998; Shealy et al, 1998; Shipley et al,
1983; van Haselen and Fisher, 2000) and one large (N=592) Level III-2 study (Birnesser et al, 2003) of
patients with knee osteoarthritis. In addition to the findings discussed above, Bellavite et al (2011)
reported that the complex homeopathic formulation used in Shealy et al (1999) was associated with
better pain relief than acetaminophen, but not to a statistically significant extent. The Level III-2
study by Birnesser et al (2003) compared symptom scores between patients who received a
homeopathic treatment (Zeel compositum-N) and those who received COX-2 inhibitors, and reported
that the homeopathic regimen was equivalent to the COX-2 inhibitors.
Overall, Bellavite et al (2011) concluded that there is “good positive evidence” for Zeel compositum-N
in the treatment of osteoarthritis based on the findings of Nahler et al (1998) and Birnesser et al
(2003); and “negative scientific evidence” (i.e. lack of evidence of benefit) for Rhus toxicodendron 6X
in the treatment of osteoarthritis based on the findings of Shipley et al (1983). The authors of the
systematic review suggest that the negative result of the trial by Shipley et al (1983) could be a result
of the non-individualised homeopathic remedy used in that trial. They state that it appears that “the
tested remedy cannot be effective if prescribed based only upon a diagnosis of disease, but without
individualisation of the therapy”.
Furthermore, Bellavite et al (2011) suggest that the reported finding of equivalence between a
homeopathic gel and piroxicam gel found in van Haselen and Fisher (2000) is important due to the
fact that the benefit of piroxicam gel over placebo has been previously established in several
double-blind Level II studies (including Norris and Guttadauria, 1987). The authors therefore suggest
that there is “indirect proof of the effectiveness of the tested homeopathic remedy” compared to
placebo.
Reviewer comments
Several of the systematic reviews reported that the homeopathic interventions were not significantly
different to conventional medications, including piroxicam gel, hyaluronic acid, paracetamol and
COX-2 inhibitors (based on Level II and III-2 evidence). However, the Level II study by Shipley et al
(1983) (identified by all four systematic reviews) reported that homeopathy was significantly inferior
to fenoprofen for the treatment of osteoarthritic pain.
The authors of the systematic reviews acknowledged that there were some serious methodological
flaws in the included studies. Importantly, the cross-over Level II study by Shipley et al (1983) had no
wash-out period between treatments. The relatively short duration of the trials (4 to 6 weeks) was
also noted as a potential limitation.
The evidence reviewer notes that Bellavite et al (2011) may have over-interpreted their results by
claiming that the “equivalence” of a homeopathic gel and piroxicam gel provides “indirect proof” of
the effectiveness of homeopathy over placebo. In addition, the same review suggested that the
negative outcome of Rhus toxicodendon 6X compared to fenoprofen was possibly due to the fact that

an individualised homeopathic regimen was not used, without any scientific evidence to support the
claim.
A major limitation across all of the systematic reviews was a lack of information regarding patient
characteristics (age, gender, duration of osteoarthritis), and reporting of primary outcomes and
results that were often difficult to interpret. It was unclear whether the gaps in reporting were due to
poor-quality reporting in the included trials or the systematic reviews themselves.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of poor to medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled
trial (medium quality; 36 participants) that compared homeopathy (Rhus toxicodendron) with
placebo for the treatment of people with osteoarthritis. LOC: Very low.
the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people with
osteoarthritis.
Three systematic reviews of poor to medium quality identified four randomised controlled trials
(medium quality; total of 406 participants, range: 36 to 184) and one large prospectively designed,
non-randomised controlled study (quality not reported; 592 participants) that compared
homeopathy with other therapies (fenoprofen, piroxicam gel, hyaluronic acid, paracetamol and COX-
2 inhibitors) for the treatment of people with osteoarthritis.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with osteoarthritis.

Table 35 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of osteoarthritis
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
De Silva et al van Haselen and Patients with Local application of 1g piroxicam gel Mean pain No difference between the “Although there was some
(2011) Fisher (2000) osteoarthritis 1g Spiroflor gel (0.5%) applied reduction (VAS) two treatment groups promising evidence, the
[Level I] [Level II] three times daily three times evidence base was either
AMSTAR: 6/10 Quality not for 4 weeks daily for 4 insufficiently large or the
d weeks evidence base was
specified
SR of CAM for N=184 inconsistent”, limiting the
osteoarthritis ability to draw any conclusions
Shealy et al (1998) Patients with A homeopathic Paracetamol Reduction in knee No difference between about the efficacy of
[Level II] knee preparation 2.6g/day pain homeopathic preparation homeopathy in osteoarthritis.
Quality not osteoarthritis including Rhus and paracetamol
d
specified toxicodendron 12x,
N=65 Causticum 12x and
Lac Vaccinum 12x)
Shipley et al (1983) Patients with Rhus Placebo or Pain on movement Homeopathy less effective
[Level II] hip or knee toxicodendron 6x fenoprofen (measured by both than fenoprofen; no
Quality not osteoarthritis 600mg three 10cm VAS and four difference compared to
d times daily point pain scores) placebo
specified
N=36 Pain at rest Homeopathy less effective
(measured by both than fenoprofen; no
10cm VAS and four difference compared to
point pain scores) placebo
Long and Ernst van Haselen and Patients with Topical application Topical Mean pain 16.5mm (SD 24.6) VAS in Two of the four included trials
(2001) Fisher (2000) knee of 1g SRL® gel to application of reduction (VAS) the intervention group present “positive evidence for
[Level I] [Level II] osteoarthritis the knee three 1g 0.05% (n=86); 8.1mm (SD 25.7) in the effectiveness of
e times daily piroxicam gel to the comparator group. combination homeopathic
N=184 the knee three Difference between preparations in comparison to
SR of times daily treatment groups was conventional medications”.
homeopathy 8.4mm (95% CI 0.8, 15.9),
for adjusted for pain at A third concluded that “Rhus
baseline was 6.8mm (95%

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
osteoarthritis CI -0.3, -13.8) toxicodendron was significantly
inferior to conventional
Joint tenderness No significant difference medication”, while the fourth
(measured by the between treatment groups reported that homeopathic gel
single-joint Ritchie (p=0.78) was “at least as effective as a
index) conventional NSAID gel”.
Nahler et al (1998) Patients with Two 2mL intra- One 2mL intra- Pain during the No significant difference
[Level II] knee articular Zeel® articular night between treatment groups Overall, there appears to be a
Jadad score 3
e osteoarthritis injections per week Hyalart® (p=0.3077) positive trend towards the
N=121 (hyaluronic acid) effectiveness of combination
injection per Duration of No significant difference homeopathic preparations;
week morning stiffness between treatment groups however, the authors
(p=0.9211) acknowledged the small
number of Level II studies from
Final assessment by No significant difference
which their conclusions are
physician and between treatment groups
drawn.
patient (p-value NR)
Tolerance No significant difference

(measured by VAS) between treatment groups
(p-value NR)
Subjective No significant differences

reduction in between the two
arthritic pain during treatments (p=0.4298)
active movement,
measured by
standardised VAS
Number of patients Significance of inter-group

with undesirable differences not reported
adverse effects (intervention group: n=6;
control group: n=13)

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Shealy et al (1998) Patients with Oral administration Paracetamol Percentage of Non-significant difference
[Level II] knee of 10 drops of a capsules four patients achieving between treatment groups
e osteoarthritis homeopathic times daily clinically useful pain (55% of patients receiving
Jadad score 3
N=65 preparation (Rhus (daily dose of reduction (40% or homeopathy and 38% of
toxicodendron, 2600mg) and greater), measured those receiving
Causticum and Lac liquid placebo daily by VAS paracetamol)
Vaccinum) and
placebo capsules
four times daily
Shipley et al (1983) Patients with Five drops of Rhus Oral Pain at rest No significant difference
[Level II] hip or knee toxicodendron administration (measured by both between homeopathy and
e osteoarthritis (6x:1/1000000 of two 10cm VAS and four placebo; fenoprofen
Jadad score 4
N=36 dilution) three fenoprofen point pain scores) produced highly significant
times daily and capsules (each pain relief compared with
placebo capsules 300mg) three homeopathy and placebo
times daily and
placebo drops; Pain on movement No significant difference
or placebo (measured by both between homeopathy and
drops and 10cm VAS and four placebo; fenoprofen
placebo point pain scores) produced highly significant
capsules pain relief compared with
homeopathy and placebo
Night pain No significant difference

(measured by both between homeopathy and
10cm VAS and four placebo; fenoprofen
point pain scores) produced highly significant
pain relief compared with
Bellavite et al van Haselen and Patients with Local application of Piroxicam gel Mean pain No significant inter-group There is “good positive
(2011) Fisher (2000) knee a homeopathic gel reduction (VAS) differences. Homeopathy evidence” for Zeel

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
[Level I/III] [Level II] osteoarthritis group: 16.5mm; Control compositum-N in the
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality not group: 8.1mm treatment of osteoarthritis
reported (Nahler et al 1998; Birnesser et
SR of N=172 al 2003).
homeopathy
Nahler et al (1998) Patients with Zeel compositum-N Hyaluronic acid, Pain during motion Equivalence of the There is “negative scientific
for multiple
[Level II] knee intrarticular (subjective scores), homeopathic complex and evidence” (i.e. lack of evidence
conditions
Quality not osteoarthritis injection tolerability hyaluronic acid of benefit) for Rhus
specified toxicodendron 6X in the
N=114 treatment of osteoarthritis.
The negative result of the trial
Shealy et al (1998) Patients with Complex Acetaminophen Motion tenderness Equivalence of
by Shipley et al (1983) suggests
[Level II] knee homeopathic (VAS) homeopathic formulation
that “the tested remedy
Quality not osteoarthritis formulation – Rhus and acetaminophen
cannot be effective if
specified toxicodendron,
Pain relief Better pain relief in the prescribed based only upon a
N=65 Causticum, and Lac
homeopathy group (55% diagnosis of disease, but
vaccinum
compared to 38% with without individualisation of
acetaminophen), but not the therapy”.
statistically significant
With regards to the findings of
Shipley et al (1983) Patients with Rhus Placebo or Symptoms No effect of homeopathy van Haselen and Fisher (2000)
[Level II] hip and knee toxicodendron 6x fenoprofen versus placebo; fenoprofen the authors of the systematic
Quality not osteoarthritis better than homeopathy review state that “since
specified and placebo double-blind clinical trials
N=36 involving patients with
osteoarthritis of the knee
Birnesser et al Patients with Zeel compositum-N COX-2 inhibitors Symptoms scores Equivalence of
showed the piroxicam topical
(2003) knee homeopathic complex and
gel to the significantly more
[Level III-2] osteoarthritis COX-2 inhibitors
effective than placebo (Norris
Quality not and Guttadauria, 1987), this
specified equivalence may be
N=592 considered as indirect proof of
the effectiveness of the tested

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
homeopathy remedy”.
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; SD, standard deviation; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
The systematic review reported that the median Jadad score was 3.
e

4.9.7 Rheumatoid arthritis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis was
assessed in three systematic reviews as summarised in Table 36 and Table 37. In total, the systematic
reviews included four Level II studies and one Level III-2 study (see Table 36).
Table 36 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of rheumatoid arthritis
Study ID
Fisher (2001) Gaus (1993) Andrade (1991) Gibson (1980) Gibson (1978)
[Level II] [Level II] [Level II] [Level II] [Level III-2]
Macfarlane
et al (2011)  
Systematic review
[Level I]
Cucherat et
al (2000) 
[Level I]
Bellavite et
al (2011)    
[Level I/III]
The systematic review by Macfarlane et al (2011) (AMSTAR score of 8/10) aimed to critically evaluate
the evidence regarding complementary and alternative medicine taken orally or applied topically
(excluding fish oil) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. For the homeopathy intervention, two
Level II studies were identified that both received a Jadad score of 3 (Fisher, 2001; Andrade, 1991).
Both Level II studies assessed the effect of homeopathy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
compared with placebo. Neither study reported a significant difference between homeopathy and
placebo for any of the primary outcomes. The only exception was in Fisher (2001), where significantly
lower pain scores were detected after placebo therapy. Macfarlane et al (2011) thus concluded that
“the available evidence does not currently support the use of homeopathy in the management of
rheumatoid arthritis”.
disease in humans”. The systematic review included one Level II study (Gaus, 1993) that investigated
the effect of homeopathic Rheumaselect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Cucherat et al (2000)
reported a significant difference (p=0.018) in favour of homeopathy, based on a composite criteria of
treatment success in this Level II study. The quality of Gaus (1993) was not formally assessed by
Cucherat et al (2000); however, a general comment was made about all of the included studies that
“the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. Overall,
the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is insufficient to
conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective”.
Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) conducted a systematic review of homeopathy and
immunology in three broad clinical areas, one of which was “Arthrorheumatic diseases and
osteoarthritis”. Three Level II studies and one Level III-2 study were identified for the rheumatoid
arthritis indication. The Level II studies included Fisher (2001), which was also included in the
systematic review by Macfarlane et al (2011). A different interpretation of the results was given,

however, in that Bellavite et al (2011) reported that there was no effect of homeopathy over placebo
in the pain and articular index outcome. Similar to the other systematic reviews, Bellavite et al (2011)
concurred that there were “slight but not significant” differences in the homeopathy group over
placebo in the Level II study by Andrade (1991).
Gibson (1980) was a Level II study that assessed the effect of individualised homeopathy in patients
with rheumatoid arthritis. The study found an improvement in symptoms in 83% of patients in the
homeopathy group and 22% of patients in the placebo group. The significance of the results,
however, was not reported. Finally, Gibson (1978) was a Level III-2 study of individualised
homeopathy in comparison to salicylate or placebo. The study reported better relief in the
homeopathic group compared to salicylate or placebo, although the significance of the results was
not reported. Bellavite et al (2011) noted that the trial was neither randomised nor double-blind so it
was not possible to distinguish between those effects due to the treatment and those due to the
difference in practitioner. Overall, Bellavite et al (2011) found that the evidence on rheumatoid
arthritis was “unclear or conflicting”. It noted “positive evidence from one RCT and one non-
randomised controlled trial. No evidence from two RCTs”.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified four randomised controlled trials
(unreported or medium quality; total of 378 participants, range: 44-176) and one medium-sized
prospectively designed, non-randomised controlled study (quality not reported; 195 participants)
that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
One systematic review of poor quality identified one medium-sized prospectively designed, non-
randomised controlled study (quality not reported; 195 participants) that compared homeopathy
with salicylate for the treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis. LOC: Low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to salicylate for the treatment of
people with rheumatoid arthritis.

Table 37 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Study ID Included Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic review
Level of study population systematic review interpretation
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Macfarlane et Fisher (2001) Seropositive Homeopathic Placebo Pain Significantly lower pain scores “The available evidence
al (2011) [Level II] rheumatoid medicines in 6cH after placebo therapy does not currently support
d
[Level I] Jadad score 3 arthritis patients or 30cH. The most the use of homeopathy in
on stable commonly used Articular index No difference between the management of RA.”
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=112
treatment were Rhus treatment groups
SR of CAM for toxicodendron and ESR No difference between

rheumatoid sulphur treatment groups
arthritis
Duration of morning No difference between
stiffness treatment groups
Andrade (1991) Patients with Individualised Placebo Morning stiffness No difference between
[Level II] rheumatoid homeopathy treatment groups
d arthritis according
Jadad score 3
to ARA criteria 15-m walking time No difference between
N=44 treatment groups
Ritchie articular index No difference between

treatment groups
Grip strength No difference between

treatment groups
Functional class No difference between

treatment groups
Other medications No difference between

treatment groups
ESR No difference between

treatment groups
Seromucoids No difference between

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
treatment groups
Overall improvement No difference between

(physician assesses) treatment groups
Cucherat et al Gaus (1993) Patients with Rheumaselect Placebo Composite criteria of Significant difference in favour “It is clear that the
(2000) [Level II] rheumatoid treatment success of homeopathy strength of available
[Level I] Quality not arthritis (p=0.018) evidence is insufficient to
AMSTAR: 10/11 specified conclude that homeopathy
N=176 is clinically effective.”
SR of
homeopathy (Note: this conclusion
for multiple refers to all clinical
conditions conditions and is not
specific to rheumatoid
arthritis)
Bellavite et al Fisher (2001) Patients with NSAIDS + NSAIDS + Pain and articular No effect of homeopathy over Unclear of conflicting
(2011) [Level II] rheumatoid individualised placebo index the placebo evidence – positive
[Level I/III] Quality not arthritis homeopathic evidence from one Level II
AMSTAR: 5/10 specified prescription and one Level III-2 study.
N=112 No evidence from two
SR of Level II studies.
Andrade (1991) Patients with Individualised Placebo Overall improvement Slight but not significant
homeopathy
[Level II] rheumatoid homeopathic (physician assesses) differences in the homeopathy
for multiple
Quality not arthritis prescription group over the placebo
conditions
specified  Homeopathy group: 59%
N=44  Placebo group: 44%
Gibson (1980) Patients with Individualised Placebo Improvement in Significance of results not
[Level II] rheumatoid homeopathic symptoms reported
Quality not arthritis prescription (spontaneous pain,  Homeopathy group: 83%
specified stiffness in the joint,  Placebo group: 22%

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
N=46 prensile strength)
Gibson (1978) Patients with Individualised Salicylate or Medical assessment Better relief in the
[Level III-2] rheumatoid homeopathic placebo homeopathic group compared
Quality not arthritis prescription to salicylate or placebo (p=NR)
specified
N=195
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; ARA, American Rheumatism Association; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; cH, Hahnemannian
centesimal scale; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; NR, not reported; NSAIDS, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.10 Neurological
4.10.1 Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a
stroke was assessed in one Level I/III systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score
8/11) as summarised in Table 38. The authors conducted a broad review of the efficacy of
individualised homeopathy across a range of clinical areas. One study was identified that assessed
the efficacy of individual homeopathic simillimum compared to placebo for the treatment of Broca’s
aphasia (Master, 1987). The study was either a Level II or Level III-1 study; however, the method of
allocation was not described and it is therefore not clear whether the study was randomised or
pseudo-randomised. In the homeopathy group, 92% of patients were assessed as globally improved
(physician-rated) compared to 25% in the placebo group. Linde and Melchart (1998) calculated a rate
ratio of 3.67 (95% CI 1.37, 9.84), indicating significant inter-group differences. However the authors
of the systematic review also stated that the study by Master (1987) was “completely inassessible”
due to “totally insufficient reporting” and questioned the reliability of the extremely positive results.
Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998) gave the study a Jadad score of 1 and an internal validity rating of
1, suggesting that the trial was of very poor quality.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified one very small prospectively designed and
controlled study (poor quality; 36 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with
placebo for the treatment of Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke. LOC: Very low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of Broca’s
aphasia in people who have had a stroke.

Table 38 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Master (1987) Stroke patients Individualised Placebo Number of patients Significantly favours “Totally insufficient report –
d
Melchart [Level II or III-1] with Broca’s simillimum assessed globally as homeopathy. completely inassessible;
(1998) d aphasia improved (physician- extremely positive results.”
Quality: 1,1 Intervention group: 22/24
[Level I/III] N=36 rated) (92%); Control group:
AMSTAR: 8/11 3/12 (25%)
SR of Rate ratio (95% CI): 3.67

homeopathy (1.37, 9.84)
for multiple
conditions
a
b
c
d
The study was either randomised or pseudo-randomised; however, the allocation of participants was not described.
e

4.10.2 Stroke
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of stroke was assessed in one systematic review
as summarised in Table 39 (Ernst and Pittler, 1998; AMSTAR score 6/10). The systematic review
performed by Ernst and Pittler (1998) assessed the efficacy of homeopathic Arnica for the treatment
of various clinical conditions. The systematic review included one Level II study (Livingstone, 1991)
that was assessed by the authors of the systematic review to be of reasonable quality (Jadad score of
3). The Level II study recruited patients admitted to hospital within seven days of suffering from a
stroke and treated them with homeopathic Arnica (in M potency) or placebo. Mortality rates at 3
months were compared between the two groups and no statistically significant difference was found
between the intervention and control arms. Ernst and Pittler (1998) did not provide a conclusion that
was specific to the effectiveness of homeopathic Arnica for the treatment of stroke; however, they
concluded that in general the assertion that “homeopathic Arnica is clinically effective beyond a
placebo effect is not based on methodologically sound placebo-controlled trials”.
Evidence statement
(medium quality; 40 participants) that compared homeopathy (Arnica) with placebo for reducing
mortality in people who have had a stroke. LOC: Very low.
the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people who have had a
stroke.

Table 39 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of stroke
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst and Pittler Livingston (1991) Patients admitted Arnica (M Placebo 3 month mortality No significant difference “The hypothesis claiming
(1998) [Level II] to hospital up to 7 potency) that homeopathic Arnica is
d
[Level I] Jadad score 3 days after acute clinically effective beyond a
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=40 event for the placebo effect is not based
treatment of stroke on methodologically sound
SR of placebo-controlled trials.”
homeopathy for
multiple (Note: this conclusion refers
conditions to all clinical conditions and
is not specific to stroke)
a
b
c
d

4.10.3 Migraine and headache

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of migraine and headache was assessed in four
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 40 and Table 41. Overall, the systematic reviews included
four unique Level II studies (Brigo and Serpelloni, 1991; Straumsheim et al, 1997; Walach et al, 1997;
Whitmarsh et al, 1993/1997) (Table 40).
Table 40 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of migraine and headache
Study ID
Straumsheim et Walach et al Whitmarsh et Brigo and
a
al (1997) (1997) al (1993/1997) Serpelloni
[Level II] [Level II] [Level II] (1991)
[Level II]
Owen and Green (2004)
   
[Level I]
Systematic review

[Level I]
Vernon et al (1999)

[Level I]
   
[Level I]
a
Whitmarsh et al (1993) and Whitmarsh et al (1997) were the same study. The study was referred to as Whitmarsh et al
(1993) in Cucherat et al (2000) and Whitmarsh et al (1997) in Owen and Green (2004) and Linde and Melchart (1998).
The quality of the systematic reviews (as assessed by the AMSTAR tool) varied greatly; from 5/10
(Vernon et al, 1999) to 10/11 (Cucherat et al, 2000). Neither of the two systematic reviews that
focused specifically on migraine and chronic headache (Owen and Green, 2004; Vernon et al, 1999)
conducted a meta-analysis. The remaining two reviews presented pooled efficacy results across all
conditions (including migraine/headache).
The systematic review by Owen and Green (2004) (AMSTAR score 6/10) assessed the efficacy of
homeopathy in the treatment of migraine and chronic headache based on all four of the Level II
studies identified by the reviews: two low quality Level II studies (Brigo and Serpelloni, 1991;
Whitmarsh et al, 1993/1997) and two Level II studies of reasonable quality (Straumsheim et al, 1997;
Walach et al, 1997). All four Level II studies reported the frequency, intensity and severity of attacks
as well as the level of medication used in the treatment group, compared to the placebo group. In
Brigo and Serpelloni (1991), the authors reported that homeopathy was superior to placebo across
all four outcomes, although no p-values were provided in the systematic review. The other three
Level II studies reported no differences between the homeopathy and placebo groups.
Owen and Green (2004) concluded that there is “insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of
homeopathy for tension type, cervicogenic and migraine headache”. The lack of conclusive evidence
was partly attributed to the limited number of studies and also to design flaws in the included
studies. Importantly, Owen and Green (2004) raised concerns about the short duration of the trials
(3-4 months), stating that homeopathy is considered a “gentle” or “soft” therapeutic intervention in
which the treatment effects may be small and may not be clinically observable during short periods

of treatment. This was said to be particularly pertinent to patients with chronic illnesses, where
therapeutic benefits may not be immediately detectable.
disease in humans”. Cucherat et al (2000) included the same Level II study by Whitmarsh et al,
1993/1997 that was included in the review by Owen and Green (2004). Whitmarsh et al (1993/1997)
recruited patients that suffer from headaches and compared the efficacy of individualised
homeopathy and placebo in terms of mean attack frequency over the course of the trial. No details
were provided about the duration of the study. No statistically significant difference was found
between the homeopathy and placebo groups in terms of mean attack frequency (p=0.83). The
quality of Whitmarsh et al (1993/1997) was not formally assessed by Cucherat et al (2000); however,
a general comment was made about all of the included studies that “the strength of this evidence is
low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. In addition, Cucherat et al (2000) also
noted that the studies of high methodological quality were more likely to provide negative results for
homeopathy compared to the lower quality studies. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear
that the strength of available evidence is insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically
effective”.
Vernon et al (1999) (AMSTAR score 5/10) conducted a systematic review that assessed a broad range
of complementary and alternative medicines in the treatment of tension-type and cervicogenic
headache. Vernon et al (1999) included only one of the Level II studies (Walach et al, 1997), which
specifically related to homeopathy and headache. Walach et al (1997) reported no significant
difference between the placebo and individualised homeopathy groups on “any important clinical
variables” over the 12-week study period. The Level II study was assessed by the authors of the
systematic review to be of high quality (86% using a quality review protocol modified from van
Tulder et al, 1997) and they concluded that the results “might recommend against the use of
homeopathy for the treatment of tension-type headache”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) identified all four of the Level II studies identified by
the reviews for inclusion in their systematic review of individualised homeopathy in treating a range
of clinical conditions. Linde and Melchart (1998) assessed all four included Level II studies to be of
reasonable (Brigo and Serpellino, 1991; Straumsheim et al, 1997; Whitmarsh et al, 1993/1997) or
good (Walach et al, 1997) quality according to the Jadad scoring system and a separate assessment
of internal validity. In Brigo and Serpelloni (1991) there was a significantly greater number of patients
assessed as globally improved in the homeopathy group compared to placebo (p<0.001). However,
all other outcomes across the four included trials were either found to have non-significant
differences between treatment groups or the level of significance was not reported. Overall, Linde
and Melchart (1998) concluded, across all clinical conditions, that any evidence suggesting that
Evidence statement
Four systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified four randomised controlled trials (poor to
good quality; total of 295 participants, range: 60-98) that compared homeopathy with placebo for
the treatment of people with migraine or headache. LOC: Low.

placebo for the treatment of people with migraine or headache.

Table 41 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of migraine and headache
a
Level of Level of evidence population systematic review interpretation
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Owen and Walach et al (1997) Patients with Individualised Placebo Frequency of Reduction in both homeopathic and There is insufficient evidence
Green (2004) [Level II] chronic homeopathy chronic headache placebo groups, no significant to support or refute the use
[Level I] 20-item assessment headache differences reported between groups of homeopathy for managing
AMSTAR: tool: 64.3% tension type, cervicogenic,
Intensity of Reduction in both homeopathic and or migraine headache – this
6/10 N=98
headache placebo groups, no significant is partially due to flaws in
differences reported between groups design.
SR of
homeopathy Severity of Reduction in both homeopathic and
for headache placebo groups, no significant "The present review concurs
headaches differences reported between groups with earlier studies and
indicates that the debate
Level of medication Reduction in both homeopathic and continues whether
used placebo groups, no significant homeopathy acts as a
differences reported between groups placebo or an effective
intervention.”
Whitmarsh et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Frequency of “Chance difference. Both groups
d
(1997) migraine homeopathy migraine improved”
[Level II]
Intensity of “Chance difference. Both groups
20-item assessment
migraine improved”
tool: 25.0%
N=60 Severity of “Chance difference. Both groups
migraine improved”
Level of medication “Chance difference. Both groups

used improved”
Straumsheim et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Frequency of Reduction in both homeopathic and
(1997) migraine homeopathy migraine placebo groups, no significant
[Level II] differences reported between groups
20-item assessment
Intensity of Reduction in both homeopathic and
tool: 57.1%
migraine placebo groups, no significant
N=73
differences reported between groups

a
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Severity of Reduction in both homeopathic and

migraine placebo groups, no significant
Level of medication Reduction in both homeopathic and

used placebo groups, no significant
Brigo and Serpelloni Patients with Single dose 30c/4x Placebo Frequency of Homeopathy superior to placebo (p-
(1991) migraine in two weeks migraine value NR)
[Level II]
Intensity of Homeopathy superior to placebo (p-
20-item assessment
migraine value NR)
tool: 38.5%
N=60 Severity of Homeopathy superior to placebo (p-
migraine value NR)
Level of medication Homeopathy superior to placebo (p-

used value NR)
Cucherat et Whitmarsh et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Change in mean No significant difference (p=0.83) “From the available
d
al (2000) (1993) headache homeopathy attack frequency evidence, it is likely that
[Level I] [Level II] over the course of among the tested
AMSTAR: Quality not formally the trial homeopathic treatments
10/11 assessed tested at least one shows an
N=64 added effect relative to
SR of placebo. The meta-analysis
homeopathy method used does not allow
for multiple any conclusion on what
conditions homeopathic treatment is
effective in which diagnosis
or against which symptoms.”
“There is some evidence that

homeopathic treatments are

a
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
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.”

is not specific to migraine
and headache)
Vernon et al Walach et al (1997) “About half Individualised Placebo NR “No difference between the two “No difference between the
(1999) [Level II] (of the 98 homeopathic groups on any important clinical two groups on any
[Level I] Quality: 86% (high subjects)” remedy for 12 variables related to headache activity” important clinical variables
AMSTAR: quality) had chronic weeks related to headache activity”
5/10 N=98 tension-type
headaches
SR of CAM
for headache
Linde and Straumsheim et al Patients with Individual Placebo Number of patients Intervention group: 8/35 (23%); The meta-analysis found an
Melchart (1997) migraine simillimum (if assessed globally Control group: 5/33 (15%). overall trend in favour of
(1998) [Level II] possible as improved Significance of inter-group differences homeopathy.
[Level I] Jadad score; internal constitutional) not reported  The rate ratio was 1.62 (95% CI
f g 1.17, 2.23) and the odds ratio
AMSTAR: validity score: 3 ; 5 chosen from 60
available remedies Frequency of Similar decrease in both treatment was 2.62e
8/11 N=73
in D30, D200, or migraine groups  The pooled rate ratio of the
1M and individual methodologically best studies
SR of Level of medication Similar decrease in both treatment was clearly smaller and not
homeopathy dosage used groups statistically significant (1.12,

a
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
for multiple Walach et al (1997) Patients with Completely free Placebo Number of patients Trend in favour of placebo. 95% CI 0.87, 1.44)e

conditions [Level II] chronic individualised assessed globally Intervention group: 25/61 (41%); Similarly, the poor rate ratio of
headache homeopathy as improved Control group: 19/37 (51%). the six studies published in
Jadad score; internal
f g MEDLINE-listed journals was
validity score: 5 ; 6 treatment Significance of inter-group differences
not significantly different from
N=98 not reported placebo (1.22, 95% CI 0.94,
1.56)e
Frequency of Slight decrease in both groups
chronic headache
(Note: the meta-analysis
Level of medication Slight decrease in both groups included all conditions, not
used just migraine/headache)
Whitmarsh et al Patients with 11 homeopathic Placebo Number of patients No statistically significant inter-group
d
(1997) migraine remedies (patients assessed globally differences. Intervention group: 11/32
[Level II] were included as improved (34%); Control group: 5/31 (16%)
Jadad score; internal provided that the
f g simillimum was
validity score: 4 ; 4
N=63 among those) in
C30, two tablets,
twice weekly
Brigo and Serpelloni Patients with 8 homeopathic Placebo Number of patients Intervention group: 24/30 (80%);
(1991) migraine remedies (with assessed globally Control group: 4/30 (13%); p<0.001
[Level II] simillimum among as improved
Jadad score; internal the eight) in C30,
f g four doses in 2-
validity score: 3 ; 5
N=60 week intervals
Intensity of attacks Intervention group: 2.9; Control

(VAS) group: 7.8. Significance of inter-group
differences not reported
Frequency of Intervention group: 1.8; Control

attacks/month group: 7.9. Significance of inter-group
differences not reported
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; CI, confidence interval; NR, not reported; SR, systematic
review; VAS, visual analogue scale

a
b
c
d
Whitmarsh et al (1993) and Whitmarsh et al (1997) were the same study. The study was referred to as Whitmarsh et al (1993) in Cucherat et al (2000) and Whitmarsh et al (1997) in Owen and
Green (2004) and Linde and Melchart (1998).
e
Values >1 indicate results in favour of homeopathy, <1 in favour of placebo. If the 95% confidence interval does not fall below 1 the result is statistically significant.
f
g
Internal validity score, maximum 6 points.

4.11 Pregnancy and childbirth

4.11.1 Dystocia
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of women with dystocia was assessed in one
humans”. The systematic review included one Level II study (Couldert, 1981) that investigated the
effect of homeopathic Caulophyllum in women with dystocia. A significant difference was reported
for the outcome of “success within 2 hours”. The difference was in favour of the homeopathic
treatment over placebo (p=0.00055). The quality of Couldert (1981) was not formally assessed by
Cucherat et al (2000); however, a general comment was made about all of the included studies that
“the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. Overall,
the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is insufficient to
conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of good quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial (quality
not reported; 34 participants) that compared homeopathy (Caulophullum) with placebo for the
treatment of women with dystocia. LOC: Very low.
Based on only one very small study of unknown quality there is no reliable evidence on which to
draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of
women with dystocia.

Table 42 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of dystocia
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Cucherat (2000) Couldert (1981) Women with Caulophyllum 5 °C Placebo Success within 2 Significant difference in “It is clear that the strength
[Level I] [Level II] dystocia hours favour of homeopathy of available evidence is
AMSTAR: 10/11 Quality not (p=0.00055) insufficient to conclude that
specified homeopathy is clinically
SR of N=34 effective.”
homeopathy for
multiple (Note: this conclusion refers
conditions to all clinical conditions and
is not specific to dystocia)
a
b
c

4.11.2 Induction of labour or reducing duration of labour

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the induction of labour or delivery in women was assessed in
one systematic review, Smith (2010) (AMSTAR score 8/10), as summarised in Table 43.
Smith (2010) was a Cochrane review that specifically aimed to determine the effects of homeopathy
for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour. The results of two studies that claimed to
be Level II studies were reported (Beer, 1999; Dorfman, 1997). However, upon a quality analysis,
Smith (2010) noted that the method of allocation concealment was either not clear or not described
in either study. The authors also noted that “the quality of the trials was difficult to assess because of
insufficient detail in the research papers, and the small sample sizes provide inadequate power” and
“the trials were placebo-controlled and double blind, but the quality was not high”.
Beer (1999) examined the effect of homeopathic Caulophyllum in women at 38 to 42 weeks’
gestation with pre-labour rupture of membranes. The study found no significant difference between
homeopathy and placebo for caesarean section, vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours,
augmentation with oxytocin, or instrumental delivery. Dorfman (1987) compared five homeopathic
therapies with placebo in women from 36 weeks’ gestation and found a significant difference in
favour of placebo for difficult labour (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.12, 0.66), but no significant difference
between homeopathy and placebo for the length of labour (MD -0.40; 95% CI -7.21, 6.41). Overall,
Smith (2010) concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any
homeopathic therapies as a method of induction of labour”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified two randomised controlled trials (poor quality;
40 and 93 participants) that compared homeopathy to placebo for the induction of labour or
reducing the duration of labour. LOC: Very low.
placebo for the induction of labour or reducing the duration of labour.

Table 43 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the induction of labour or reducing duration of labour in women
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
e
Smith (2010) Beer (1999) Women at 38-42 Caulophyllum D4, Placebo Caesarean section No significant difference “There is insufficient
[Level I] [Level II] weeks’ gestation doses were repeated (p=0.29) evidence to
e
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not high with prelabour hourly for 7 hours or  RR 5.00 (95% CI 0.26, 98.00) recommend the use
N=40 rupture of until labour started of any homeopathic
Vaginal delivery not No significant difference
SR of membranes therapies as a
achieved within 24 (p=0.49)
homeopathy for method of induction
hours  RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01, 7.72)
induction of of labour.”
labour Augmentation with No significant difference
e
oxytocin (p=1.0)
 RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.50, 1.98)
e
Instrumental delivery No significant difference
(p=1.0)
 RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.54, 1.86)
e
Dorfman (1987) Women at 36 Five homeopathic Placebo Length of labour No significant difference
[Level II] weeks’ gestation. therapies: (p=0.91)
Quality not high
e Women were caulophyllum, Arnica,  MD -0.40 (95% CI -7.21, 6.41)
N=93 excluded from the actea racemosa, e
Difficult labour Significant difference in favour
study if they had a pulsatilla and
poor obstetric geranium, with 3 of placebo
history, a current granules  RR 0.28 (95% CI 0.12, 0.66)
history of administered
hypertension, morning and evening
diabetes, previous from 36 weeks’
caesarean section gestation. When
or cephalo-pelvic labour commenced,
disproportion the same dosage was

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
given every 15
minutes and stopped
after 2 hours or
sooner if the woman
was comfortable. No
details provided on
the precise dosage.
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CI, confidence interval; D, decimal; MD, mean difference; RR, relative risk; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e
A formal quality assessment was not conducted. The author stated that the quality of the trials was “not high” and was difficult to assess because of insufficient detail in the research papers
and the small sample sizes provided inadequate power.

4.12 Psychiatric and behavioural disorders

4.12.1 Children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with ADHD was assessed in four
systematic reviews (Altunc et al, 2007; Davidson et al, 2011; Heirs and Dean, 2009; Linde and
Melchart, 1998) as summarised in Table 44 and Table 45. In total, the reviews included three Level II
trials (Frei et al, 2005; Jacobs et al, 2005; Strauss, 2000) and one Level III-1 study (Lamont, 1997).
Table 44 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of ADHD
Study ID
Frei et al (2005) Jacobs et al Strauss (2000) Lamont (1997)
[Level II] (2005) [Level II] [Level III-1]
[Level II]
Davidson et al
(2011)   
[Level I]
Heirs and Dean
Systematic review
(2009)    
[Level I/III]
Altunc et al
(2007)   
[Level I]
Linde and Melchart
(1998) 
[Level I/III]
Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) was a systematic review of Level II studies that examined
the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of psychiatric conditions, including ADHD. The
review included three Level II studies (Frei et al, 2005; Jacobs et al, 2005; Strauss, 2000) that
examined the effect of individualised homeopathy compared to placebo. All studies were rated by
the systematic review authors as “good” using the SIGN quality assessment tool. Frei et al (2005)
reported that homeopathy had a statistically significant benefit over placebo in terms of behavioural
and cognitive functions (p<0.05), using the Conners’ Global Index (parent-reported) to measure
efficacy. However, Jacobs et al (2005) found no significant difference between treatment groups
using the same primary outcome measure. Similarly, Strauss (2000) reported an effect in favour of
homeopathy that was “weak at best” based on one parent-reported outcome (Conners’ Parent
Symptom Questionnaire) and no significant difference compared to placebo based on one child
completed test (Children’s Checking Task). Overall, Davidson et al (2011) concluded that the mixed
results made it difficult to formulate a generalised conclusion for the clinical area as a whole.
Altunc et al (2007) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of
homeopathy in nine childhood and adolescent conditions, including ADHD. The review included the
three Level II studies discussed above (Frei et al, 2005; Jacobs et al, 2005; Strauss, 2000), and no
additional outcomes were presented. The only additional information was that Altunc et al (2007)
reported a p-value of p=0.01 in favour of homeopathy for the Conners’ Parent Symptom

Questionnaire (Strauss, 2000), whereas Davidson et al (2011) had described the effect for this
outcome as “weak at best”. The actual magnitude of the effect, which is arguably more relevant, was
not discussed. The authors of the systematic review assessed the quality of the trials using a Jadad
score. Frei at el (2005) and Jacobs et al (2005) received scores of 5 and Strauss (2000) scored a 2.
Overall, Altunc et al (2007) concluded that there was “no compelling data” for any homeopathic
intervention for the treatment of ADHD due to a mixture of positive and negative results.
Heirs and Dean (2009) (AMSTAR score 11/11) conducted a Cochrane review of homeopathy for
ADHD or hyperkinetic disorder. The systematic review included the same three Level II studies that
investigated homeopathy in children with ADHD (Frei et al, 2005; Jacobs et al, 2005; Strauss, 2000),
plus a pseudo-randomised Level III-1 study (Lamont, 1997). Heirs and Dean (2009) assessed the
quality of each of the studies and considered aspects of methodological quality when they assessed
heterogeneity; however, no specific quality score was provided for each study. As shown in Table 45,
Heirs and Dean (2009) calculated standard mean differences (and 95% confidence intervals) to
demonstrate the effect of homeopathy compared to placebo when sufficient data were available.
The outcomes measured were stated more explicitly in Heirs and Dean (2009) than the other
systematic reviews, and the results of subscales within the overall scores were also provided. For
example, the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale is presented as a total score and also subscales including
hyperactivity, inattention, restlessness/impulsivity and emotional lability.
Heirs and Dean (2009) also reported the significant benefit of homeopathy over placebo according to
the Conners’ Global Index (parent-rated), as examined by Frei et al (2005). Individualised
homeopathy was also found be effective in reducing hyperactivity over ten days, compared to
placebo (standard mean difference: -0.65; 95% confidence interval: -1.27, -0.03) in the Level III-1
study conducted by Lamont (1997). However, no other significant intergroup differences were found
on any other outcomes (including subscales) across the four included studies. In the smallest,
poorest-quality Level II study by Strass (2000), half of the participants in both the intervention and
placebo arms received concomitant Ritalin.
Heirs and Dean (2009) also conducted a meta-analysis of the three Level II trials, despite the
“significant heterogeneity” that existed between them in terms of “how the ‘homeopathic
treatment’ was operationalised and implemented, as well as the effects”. The results of the meta-
analysis are presented in Table 46, and indicate that the pooling of results did not achieve any
positive effects in terms of standard mean difference.
Heirs and Dean (2009) acknowledged the major limitations of their systematic review and the
included studies. They suggested that the cross-over study design of Frei et al (2005) may have
affected the results; possibly through a regression to the mean in phase one, or alternatively a carry-
over effect in either phase one or two. The statistically significant benefit of homeopathy over
placebo (parent-rated Conners’ Global Index) reported in Frei et al (2005) may therefore be
attributable to flawed methodology. It was also noted that Frei et al (2005) included an initial
screening period to identify a subset of children who responded to homeopathy. An indefinite
number of follow-ups were allowed at this stage and medicines could be prescribed or changed until
a successful response was obtained. Participants who successfully responded to homeopathy (50%
amelioration of symptoms on Conners’ Global Index) were then entered into the Level II study.
In addition to the limitations of the included studies, Heirs and Dean (2009) acknowledged limitations
of their meta-analysis. The data pooled in the meta-analysis came predominantly from two studies

that adopted different homeopathic approaches, including formulaic (Strauss, 2000) and
individualised homeopathy (Jacobs et al, 2005). The authors felt that pooling was still appropriate
since “all of the studies could be interpreted as addressing the ongoing controversy of whether
homeopathic dilutions have any effect over a placebo dose”. Nonetheless, Heirs and Dean concluded
that there is “currently little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy” and “insufficient evidence to
recommend the use of homeopathy for children diagnosed with ADHD”.
Finally, an earlier systematic review by Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) examined
the efficacy of individualised homeopathy for the treatment of a variety of clinical conditions. The
Level III-1 study of children with ADHD by Lamont (1997) was identified for inclusion in the
systematic review; however, it was excluded from the meta-analysis due to “insufficient reporting of
results” and a “problematic design” in which observation periods were not standardised. Lamont
(1997) found a significantly better “mean response score” (t=2.16; p<0.05) in the homeopathy group
(1.00) compared with placebo (0.35). Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998) concluded that, across all
clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that homeopathy has an effect over placebo is “not
convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
Evidence statement
Four systematic reviews of medium to good quality identified three randomised controlled trials
(good quality; total of 125 participants, range: 20-62) and one very small prospectively designed,
non-randomised controlled study (poor quality; 45 participants) that compared homeopathy with
placebo for the treatment of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of children with ADHD.

Table 45 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Davidson et Frei et al (2005) Children with Individualised Placebo CGI-P Statistically significant benefit for Overall there were mixed
al (2011) [Level II] ADHD homeopathy homeopathy, particularly in results for the efficacy of
[Level I] SIGN rating: behavioural and cognitive functions homeopathy on ADHD,
AMSTAR: Good (p<0.05). making it difficult to
8/10 N=62 generalise the results to
this clinical area.
Jacobs et al Children with Individualised Placebo CGI-P Placebo tended to be better than
SR of
(2005) ADHD homeopathy homeopathy, but not significantly
homeopathy
[Level II] better
for multiple
conditions SIGN rating:
Good
N=43
Strauss (2000) Children with Individualised Placebo CPSQ Overall hyperactivity improved more
[Level II] ADHD homeopathy on homeopathy than placebo;
e
SIGN rating: however effect was weak at best
Good
d CCT No significant difference between
N=20 homeopathy and placebo
Altunc et al Frei et al (2005) Children with Individualised Placebo CGI-P Significant difference “The best evidence from
(2007) [Level II] ADHD homeopathy, material (p=0.048) double-blind RCTs shows
j
[Level I] Jadad score 5  89% male potencies, 6 weeks, no compelling data for any
treatment regimen not Adverse events Main adverse events causing therapeutic or preventive
AMSTAR: N=62
reported
f withdrawal were 1 increasing tics, 2 intervention testing
6/10
behavioural disorders, 1 reactive homeopathy for childhood
depression and adolescence
SR of
homeopathy Jacobs et al Children with Individualised Placebo CGI-P No significant difference ailments.”
for multiple (2005) ADHD homeopathy, 18
conditions [Level II]  Mean age: 9.5 weeks, homeopathic “The evidence for ADHD…
j years remedies prescribed Adverse events No adverse events is mixed, showing both
Jadad score 5
 77% male with no limit, doses positive and negative
N=43

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
and potencies not results for [the] main
g
reported outcome measure.”
Strauss (2000) Children with Standardised Placebo CPSQ Significant difference

(Note: this conclusion
[Level II] ADHD homeopathy, material (p=0.01) in favour of homeopathy
refers to all clinical
Jadad score 2
j  Mean age: 10 potencies, 2 months,
years CCT “Intergroup difference for conditions and is not
N=20 treatment regimen not
 90% male improvement compared with baseline specific to ADHD)
reported
Selenium-Homaccord
h for CCT” (p=NR)
Heirs and Frei et al (2005) Children with Individual Placebo CGI-P Significant benefit of homeopathy over “Overall this review found
Dean (2009) [Level II] ADHD homeopathic medicine placebo in the cross-over. Generic no evidence that
[Level I/III] Quality score not  aged 7-15 yr – prescribed according inverse weighted average treatment homeopathy has a
AMSTAR: specified  symptoms had to Hahnemann and effect: significant impact on the
11/11 N=62 improved by Bönninghausen, -1.67 (95% CI -3.32, -0.02) overall severity, core
≥50% under administered as daily symptoms or related
homeopathic liquid doses (LM Inattention and Insufficient data to calculate effect size outcomes of children
SR of treatment impulsivity (using
homeopathy potencies) diagnosed with Attention
during TAP)
for ADHD screening Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder.”
Jacobs et al Children with Individual Placebo CGI-P No evidence for effectiveness of
(2005) ADHD homeopathic medicine homeopathy over placebo. Significant heterogeneity
[Level II]  mean age: 9 – prescribed according SMD 0.13 (95% CI -0.47, 0.73) exists between the three
Quality score not years to Hahnemann and
CPRS-R No evidence of effectiveness of trials included in the meta-
specified Bönninghausen, analysis in terms of how
administered as daily homeopathy over placebo.
N=43 “homeopathic treatment”
liquid doses (LM SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.43, 0.77)
was operationalised and
potencies) implemented as well as the
Hyperactivity No evidence of effectiveness of
subscale from homeopathy on hyperactivity effects (one used a
CPRS-R symptoms. formula of medicines given
SMD 0.21 (95% CI -0.39, 0.81) without individualisation
to patients over a relatively
CPRS-R domain of No evidence of effectiveness was short period of time; one
inattention found.

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
SMD 0.39 (95% CI -0.21, 1.00) used a form of
individualised homeopathy
Restlessness/ No significant evidence of similar to how ‘classical’
impulsivity (from effectiveness. homeopathy is used in
the CPRS-R) SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.57, 0.62) practice with freedom to
Conduct/ No evidence of effectiveness. vary the medicines as well
oppositional as potency (strength) and
SMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.50, 0.70)
behaviour frequency, although critics
have suggested that the
Emotional Lability No evidence of effectiveness. treatment period of 18
domain (from the SMD 0.21 (95% CI -0.39, 0.81) weeks was too short to
CPRS-R) show benefit hence the
negative findings).
Global total on the No significant differences. However, “a trial of
CGI-T SMD 0.41 (95% CI -0.20, 1.01) individualised homeopathy
Restless/ Impulsive No significant differences. with minimised non-
behaviour (sub- specific effects found a
SMD 0.39 (95% CI -0.21, 1.00)
domain of CGI-T) significant benefit from
homeopathy” (Frei et al
Emotional Lability No significant differences. 2005)
(sub-domain of SMD 0.41 (95% CI -0.19, 1.02)
CGI-T) “There is insufficient
evidence to draw robust
Inattention No significant difference.
conclusions about the
(measured by the SMD -0.12 (95% CI -0.72, 0.48)
effectiveness of any
Conners’ CPT)
particular form of
Impulsivity No evidence of effectiveness. homeopathy for ADHD at
(measured by the SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.67, 0.53) present given that only
CPT) three randomised
controlled trials have been
Strauss (2000) Children with Formula homeopathic Placebo, with CRS (older version No evidence of effectiveness of carried out, and all were
h
[Level II] ADHD combination medicine (n=5) or which included a homeopathy on ADHD Index score as relatively small in size.”
Quality score not  aged 7-10 – ten drops, three without domain termed the rated by parents.
years times daily for two Hyperactivity Index

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
specified  half (n=10) months, with (n=5) or Ritalin (n=5) but has been SMD -0.17 (95% CI -1.05, 0.71) “There is at present
N=20 taking Ritalin without Ritalin (n=5) renamed the ADHD insufficient evidence to
 18 boys; 2 girls Index in later recommend the use of
revisions) homeopathy for children
diagnosed with ADHD.”
Restlessness/ No evidence of effectiveness.

impulsivity (from SMD -0.14 (95% CI -1.02, 0.74)
the CRS)
Anxiety (based on Non-significant difference in levels of

a domain within anxiety.
the older CRS) SMD -0.55 (95% CI -1.45, 0.34)
Conduct/ No evidence of effectiveness.

oppositional SMD 0.26 (95% CI -1.14, 0.63)
behaviour
Inattention No significant difference.

(converted from SMD -0.53 (95% CI -1.42, 0.37)
“successful
attention” using
CCT by Strauss
2000)
Lamont (1997) Children with Individualised Placebo Change in Effectiveness was found.
[Level III-1] ADHD homeopathic medicine hyperactivity over SMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.27, -0.03)
Quality score not  all lived in – prescribed following 10 days (measured
specified foster homes a consultation using by a five point
 mean age 10 classical homeopathic rating scale
N=43
years prescribing and the completed by
 35% Black, RADAR repertory parents)
47% Hispanic;
software.
18% Caucasian
Administered as 6 x

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
200c pills daily for up
to 5 days. Ten days
after the prescription
progress was followed-
up, with the option of
changing the medicine
on two further
occasions.
Linde and Lamont (1997) Children with Individual simillimum Placebo Mean response Response scores in homeopathy group The authors did not
Melchart [Level III-1] ADHD in C200 daily up to 5 score significantly better (mean scores 1.00 provide any specific
(1998) Quality: 2,2
i  mean age 10 days, computer- vs 0.35; t=2.16; p<0.05 conclusions regarding the
[Level I/III] N=45 years assisted (RADAR) efficacy of homeopathy in
AMSTAR: children with ADHD.
8/11
SR of
homeopathy
for multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: ADHD, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CCT, Children’s Checking Task; CGI-P, Conners’ Global Index-Parent; CPRS-
R, Revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale; CPSQ, Conners’ Parent Symptom Questionnaire; NR, not reported; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; SR, systematic review; TAP, Test
battery for Attention Performance.
a
b
c
d
Refers to the number of participants who completed the study. Number of participants enrolled was not reported.
e
Subsequent review in Cochrane analysis failed to find significance on any measure.
f
17 different remedies prescribed, potencies between Q3 and Q42: Calcarea carbonica, sulphur, Chamomilla, Lycopodium, silica, Hepar-sulph., Nux vomica, China, Ignatia, Mercurius, Capsicum,
Causticum, Hyoscyamus, phosphorous, phosphoric acid, sepia, Staphysagria
g
41 different remedies prescribed: Medorrhinum, Saccharum officinalis, Calcarea carbonica, Calcarea phosphorica, China officinalis, stramonium; Concomitant treatment: stimulant
medications (5H; 4P)
h
Remedy contains selenium in 10X, 15X, 30X, 200X with potassium phosphate in 2X, 10X, 30X, 200X. This combination is sold commercially to improve concentration, memory and alertness.

i
j
Table 46 Meta-analysis results presented in Heirs and Dean (2009)

Homeopathy versus Placebo (Parent Ratings)
Outcome or subgroup No. of No. of Statistical method Effect size
studies participants
CGI-P 2 Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI) -1.56 [-3.18, 0.06]
ADHD Index 2 63 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.06 [-0.43, 0.56]
Hyperactivity: 2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
Randomised only 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.21 [-0.39, 0.81]
Quasi and fully randomised 2 86 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.22 [-1.06, 0.63]
Inattention 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.39 [-0.21, 1.00]
Restless/Impulsive 2 63 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.03 [-0.52, 0.46]
Oppositional/Conduct 2 63 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.01 [-0.51, 0.48]
Emotional Lability 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.21 [-0.39, 0.81]
Anxiety 1 20 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.55 [-1.45, 0.34]
Global Index Scores 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.13 [-0.47, 0.73]
Homeopathy versus Placebo (Teacher Ratings)
Global Index Total 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.41 [-0.20, 1.01]
Restless/Impulsive 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.39 [-0.21, 1.00]
Emotional Lability 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.41 [-0.19, 1.02]
Homeopathy versus Placebo (Child completed tests)
Inattention 2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Subtotals only
Original figures 2 63 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.25 [-0.74, 0.25]
Adjusted figures 2 62 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.21 [-0.71, 0.29]
Impulsivity 1 43 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) -0.07 [-0.67, 0.53]
Abbreviations: ADHD, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CGI-P, Conners’ Global Index-Parent; CI, confidence interval

4.12.2 Anxiety or stress-related conditions

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with anxiety or stress-related
conditions was assessed in two systematic reviews as summarised in Table 47 and Table 48. In total,
the systematic reviews included 11 Level II studies. Both systematic reviews received an AMSTAR
score of 8/10 for quality. None of the systematic reviews performed a meta-analysis of the data.
Table 47 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of anxiety or stress-related
disorders
Systematic review
Pilkington et al (2006) Davidson et al (2011)
[Level I] [Level I]
Ngobese (2006)

[Level II]
Thompson (2005)

[Level II]
Vaithilingam (2005)

[Level II]
Baker (2003)
 
[Level II]
Bonne (2003)
 
[Level II]
Study ID
Traub (2000)

[Level II]
McCutcheon (1996)
 
[Level II]
Alibeu (1992)

[Level II]
Hariveau (1991)

[Level II]
Heulluy (1985)

[Level II]
Stanton (1981)

[Level II]
Pilkington et al (2006) (AMSTAR score 8/10) performed a systematic review of the clinical evidence
on homeopathy for the treatment of anxiety and anxiety disorders. It included the results of eight
Level II studies of variable quality.
Test anxiety was assessed in two Level II studies (Stanton, 1981; Baker, 2003). Stanton (1981) was a
placebo-controlled trial that examined the effect of a homeopathic preparation for test anxiety in 40
subjects. The study found a significant reduction in test anxiety (as measured by the Test Anxiety
Scale (TAS)) in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. Pilkington et al (2006) noted,
however, that “the original article was unavailable so that it was not possible to rate the quality”.
Baker (2003) (Jadad score of 4) was an attempt to replicate the study by Stanton (1981). The Level II

study was conducted in an Australian University with 70 test anxious student volunteers. A revised
version of the TAS was used, and the results found no significant difference in test anxiety between
the homeopathy and placebo groups. A comparison of the results with the data by Stanton (1981)
suggested that anxiety scores pre-treatment “might have been slightly higher” in the 1981 study;
however, it was not clear whether the higher baseline anxiety scores related to the homeopathy or
placebo treatment arm or the mean score across both groups.
Moderate anxiety or generalised anxiety disorder was assessed in two Level II studies (McCutcheon,
1996; Bonne, 2003). McCutcheon (1996) (Jadad score of 4) found no significant differences in either
pre- or post-test State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores between the homeopathy and placebo
groups. The homeopathy group, however, reported significantly less loss of sleep. The author
concluded that “the homeopathic complex used may be useful for this aspect of anxiety, although it
appeared to have little value in the reduction of either state or trait anxiety”. Bonne (2003) (Jadad
score of 3) reported no significant differences between adults with generalised anxiety disorder who
were treated with individualised homeopathic remedies or placebo for 10 weeks. In fact, a significant
improvement was observed in both the active and placebo groups. Pilkington et al (2006) noted,
however, that this study may have been underpowered as a power calculation demonstrated that a
minimum of 60 participants were required but only 44 were recruited.
Mixed anxiety and depressive disorder was assessed in two Level II studies of “proprietary
homeopathic complexes” (Hariveau, 1991; Heulluy, 1985). Both Level II studies were rated a Jadad
score of 1. The comparator arm for both studies used benzodiazepine, which primarily comprises an
anxiolytic and thus the anxiety component of the condition was being treated in the comparator
group. In both Level II studies, the homeopathic complex was reported to be as effective as
benzodiazepine, but this may be a result of the studies being insufficiently powered to detect a
difference. Pilkington et al (2006) also reported that “concerns over the initial diagnosis of
participants together with a lack of detail about the methodology and outcome measures limit the
usefulness of these findings”.
Finally, anxiety associated with medical or physical conditions was assessed in two Level II studies
(Alibeu, 1992; Thompson, 2005). Alibeu (1992) (Jadad score of 2) was a Level II study of homeopathic
aconite for postoperative agitation in children. The results suggested that homeopathic aconite
might be an appropriate treatment as “95% good results” were reported. However, Pilkington et al
(2006) noted that “no clear objective outcome measures were provided and many of the
methodological details such as randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were unclear”. In
contrast, Thompson (2005) (Jadad score of 5) was a “rigorously conducted randomised placebo-
controlled trial” of homeopathy for the treatment of symptoms of oestrogen withdrawal (including
anxiety) in 53 breast cancer patients. The authors reported that both groups experienced clinically
important improvements based on Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) scores over
the 16 week trial period. However, the study did not find that the specific effect of the remedy added
further to the non-specific effects of the consultation, possibly due to lack of power.
Overall, the systematic review by Pilkington et al (2006) concluded that the Level II studies reported
contradictory results and “the findings of many of the included studies were limited by the lack of
detail about methodology and outcome measures as well as concerns that several of the studies
were insufficiently powered to detect differences between treatments”. Consequently, “no firm
conclusions on the efficacy of homeopathy for anxiety can be drawn”.

Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) was a systematic review of Level II studies of
homeopathy for psychiatric conditions. For anxiety or stress-related conditions, six Level II studies
were identified. Three Level II studies (Baker, 2003; Bonne, 2003; McCutcheon, 1996) overlapped
with those identified in Pilkington et al (2006). The interpretation of those studies was consistent
between the two systematic reviews.
Davidson et al (2011) also included three additional Level II studies that were not identified in
Pilkington et al (2006): Ngobese (2006), Vaithilingam (2005) and Trabu (2003). Ngobese (2006) was
reported to be a fair quality Level II study that investigated the effect of individualised homeopathy
in patients with generalised anxiety disorder. The study reported no significant difference between
the homeopathy and placebo groups for any outcome measure. Vaithilingam (2005) was a poor-
quality Level II study that assessed individualised homeopathy in patients with job-related burnout.
The results were that “homeopathy was worse than placebo on the depersonalisation scale of
Maslach Burnout Inventory”. Finally, Trabu (2003) was a poor-quality study that examined a
combined three-remedy product in patients with test anxiety. While the outcome measure was
unclear, Davidson et al (2011) reported “no effect on the total scores of the primary measures” and
“weak evidence for homeopathy on scale items”. Overall, Davidson et al (2011) concluded that there
is “no support for the efficacy of homeopathy in anxiety- or stress-related conditions”.
Reviewer comments
Conflicting evidence exists for the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments in patients with anxiety or
stress-related conditions. Many of the Level II studies that have investigated this indication are small
in size and limited by poor methodological quality. The evidence reviewer notes that Pilkington et al
(2006) also included one uncontrolled study (Davidson, 1997) in their assessment of anxiety and
anxiety disorders. However, this study was excluded for the purposes of this overview as it is classed
as Level III-3 evidence.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified nine randomised controlled trials (poor to good
quality; total of 402 participants, range: 27-77) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the
treatment of people with anxiety or stress-related conditions. LOC: Very low - low.
placebo for the treatment of people with anxiety or stress-related conditions.
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified three randomised controlled trials (poor to
medium quality; total of 172 participants, range: 28-84) that compared homeopathy with other
therapies (lorazepam, diazepam and cognitive behavioural therapy) for the treatment of people with
anxiety or stress-related conditions.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with anxiety or stress-
related conditions.

Table 48 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of anxiety or stress-related conditions
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Pilkington et Thompson (2005) Breast cancer Individualised Placebo Mean HADS anxiety No significant difference The findings of many of
al (2006) [Level II] patients with prescribing (60 scores the included studies
d
[Level I] Jadad score 5 symptoms of minute initial were limited by the lack
oestrogen consultation plus MYMOP No significant difference of detail about
AMSTAR: N=53
8/10 withdrawal four 20 minute Menopausal Significant clinical improvements in methodology and
(including follow-up Symptom both groups; between-group outcome measures as
SR of anxiety) consultations, over Questionnaire differences not clear (p-value NR) well as concerns that
homeopathy 16 weeks) several of the studies
for anxiety EORTC QLQ-C30 Significant clinical improvements in were insufficiently
both groups; between-group powered to detect
differences not clear (p-value NR) differences between
treatments
Baker (2003) Australian Traditionally Radionically Benson Revised No significant difference
[Level II] university prepared Argentum prepared Test Anxiety Scale
d No firm conclusions on
Jadad score 4 students with nitricum 12x, twice Argentum
TAS 36-item No significant difference the efficacy of
N=70 test anxiety daily for 4 days nitricum 12x;
Argentum nitricum homeopathy for anxiety
(score of 50+ on or placebo
questionnaire pre- can be drawn
Benson RTA) (alcohol/water
mixture as per and post-treatment
treatments) (1 week later)
Bonne (2003) Adults with Individualised Placebo (non- HAM-A; HAM-D; Significant improvement in both
[Level II] generalised homeopathy (single medication BSI; PGWBI; BDI; groups (p-value NR)
d
Jadad score 3 anxiety disorder remedy, all dilutions impregnated STAI subjective No significant difference between
-30
N=44 (DSM-IV >10 ) for 10 weeks globules) distress (VAS) groups
diagnosis);
HAM-A >20,
HAM-D <18
e
McCutcheon (1996) Students with Anti-Anxiety , 20 Placebo STAI No significant difference
[Level II] above average drops, four times
Resting pulse rate No significant difference

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
d
Jadad score 4 anxiety scores daily for 15 days Sleep loss Significantly less sleep loss in the
N=77 (score of 18+ on homeopathy group
f
part one of pre- (p-value NR)
test STAI)
Alibeu (1992) Children (aged 6 Aconite Placebo Physician-assessed “Effective with 95% good results”
[Level II] months to 14 improvement
d
Jadad score 2 years) with post-
N=50 operative
agitation/anxiety
Hariveau (1991) Patients with Lithium Microsol, 3-4 Lorazepam 2- Sleep – measure Unclear
[Level II] reactive anxiety ampoules per day, 4mg per day, not stated
d
Jadad score 1 depression twice daily for 30 twice daily
days Delay in sleep onset Unclear
N=84
– measure NR
Heart rate Unclear
“Emotionalism” – Unclear
measure not stated
Heulluy (1985) Patients under Non-individualised Diazepam Ratio of pre and No difference – L72 as effective as
[Level II] consultation for L72 (constituents not (dose and post scores for diazepam on all measures
d
Jadad score 1 depression, specified), 20 drops, frequency selected items on
N=60 postmenopausal four times daily for unknown) HAM scale – details
involution or 31 days. Dose not specified
thymo-effective increased if required
dystonia Adverse events - 1 patient treated with L72 and two
drowsiness treated with diazepam suffered
from drowsiness
Stanton (1981) Patients with test Argentum nitricum Placebo Test Anxiety Scale Homeopathic preparation
[Level II] anxiety 12x significantly improved test anxiety
Quality not compared with placebo
specified (p-value NR)

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
N=40
Davidson et Ngobese (2006) Patients with Individualised Placebo or HARS, BAI, PPQ No significant difference There is no support for
al (2011) [Level II] GAD homeopathy CBT  “A proven treatment for GAD, cognitive efficacy of homeopathy
[Level I] SIGN score: fair therapy, failed to work; study can be in anxiety- or stress-
AMSTAR:8/10 N=41 regarded as a “failed” study rather than related conditions.
a negative study for homeopathy. In
other words, it is not informative.
SR of Length of treatment may have been
homeopathy inadequate”.
for multiple
Vaithilingam (2005) Patients with job- Individualised Placebo Maslach Burnout Homeopathy worse than placebo
conditions
[Level II] related burnout homeopathy Inventory subscales on depersonalisation scale of
SIGN score: poor Maslach Burnout Inventory
g
N=30
Baker et al (2003) Patients with test Argentum nitricum Placebo Benson Revised Results favoured placebo (weak
[Level II] anxiety Test Anxiety Scale effect size)
SIGN score: fair
g
N=62
Bonne et al (2003) Patients with Individualised Placebo Rate of response No significant differences (“results
[Level II] GAD homeopathy unlikely to be different with a
SIGN score: fair larger sample size”)
N=44  Homeopathy 40% vs. control 42%
Traub (2000) Patients with test Combined 3-remedy Placebo Unclear No effect on the total scores of the
[Level II] anxiety product primary measures. Weak evidence
SIGN score: poor for homeopathy on scale items
g
N=32
McCutcheon (1996) Patients with Combined 9-remedy Placebo STAI(T), STAI(S), Mixed results; significant
[Level II] high trait anxiety product sleep, pulse improvement on sleep, but no
SIGN score: fair benefit on state anxiety
N=77

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BSPS, Brief Social Phobia Scale; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; CBT, cognitive behavioural
therapy; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; EORTC QLQ, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; GAD, generalised anxiety disorder;
HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HAM, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety; ITT, intention-to-treat; MYMOP, Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile; NR, not reported; PGWBI,
Psychological General Well-Being Index; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; SR, systematic review; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; TAS, Test Anxiety Scale.
a
b
c
d
e
Constituents include: Cicuta virosa, Ignatia, Gaultheria, Asafoetida, Corydalis, Sumbulis, Valeriana officinalis, Hyoscyamus, Avena sativa.
f
Authors of SR state that sleep disturbance is not a core symptom of anxiety.
g
Number of patients enrolled was not reported. The sample size refers to the number of patients who completed the study.

4.12.3 Borderline personality disorder

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder
was assessed in one systematic review that formed the basis of a NICE clinical practice guideline on
borderline personality disorder (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2009; AMSTAR
score 3/5). The systematic review aimed to evaluate the treatments that are associated with
improvement in mental state and quality of life, reductions in self-harm, service use, risk-related
behaviour, and/or improved social and personal functioning while minimising harm in people with
borderline personality disorder. No studies were found from the search that was conducted in 2006,
including a broadening of the search for studies on any personality disorder. The systematic review
thus concluded that “there is no evidence on the use of complementary therapies as a treatment in
people with a personality disorder”.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in people with borderline personality disorder.
4.12.4 Dementia
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with dementia was assessed in one
systematic review (McCarney et al, 2009; AMSTAR score 5/5). This Cochrane review aimed to
evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of homeopathically prepared medications used in
treating dementia, as established by Level II studies. The results of the literature search conducted in
March 2009 identified no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The authors thus concluded
that “in view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in
treating dementia”.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in people with dementia.

4.12.5 Depression
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of depression was assessed in one systematic
review (Pilkington et al, 2005; AMSTAR score 7/10) as summarised in Table 49. The systematic
review, which focused specifically on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of
depression, identified two Level II studies (Katz et al, 2005; Heulluy, 1985) and five uncontrolled
studies that did not meet the standards for inclusion in this review. The systematic review did not
identify any Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2 studies that compared homeopathy to placebo for the
treatment of depression.
The formal quality assessment was not specified for each individual trial by Pilkington et al (2005),
although the authors did comment on the low methodological quality of the two Level II studies as
well as the very small number of patients that were recruited (4 and 30 patients, respectively). In
addition, Pilkington et al (2005) questioned whether Heulluy (1985) had used an appropriate
comparator, stating “the use of an anxiolytic drug as a control appears inappropriate in a trial in
patients with depression”.
Ultimately, no results were presented from Katz et al (2005) due to low recruitment (4 patients) and
the findings of the systematic review are largely based on the flawed Level II study by Heulluy (1985),
which reported no difference between homeopathy (L72) and diazepam in terms of the ratio of pre-
and post-treatment scores for selected items on the Hamilton Depression Scale. The systematic
review authors conclude that the evidence base for homeopathy in depression is currently weak due
to the “lack of clinical trials of high quality”.
Reviewer comments
Overall, the findings of the systematic review were limited by the low recruitment and methodological
flaws within the included trials. The identification of only two very small Level II studies (one of which
presented no results due to low recruitment), prevented the authors of the systematic review from
presenting any strong evidence to indicate benefit or inferiority of homeopathy compared to other
interventions.
The evidence reviewer supports the assertion by Pilkington et al (2005) that the studies identified in
their review were inadequately randomised, controlled and powered in order to meet conventional
measures of quality from which any meaningful clinical evidence could be drawn.
Evidence statement
depression.
One systematic review of medium quality identified two randomised controlled trials (poor quality; 4
and 30 participants) that compared homeopathy with diazepam or fluoxetine for the treatment of
people with depression.
LOC: Very low.

homeopathy is as effective as diazepam or fluoxetine for the treatment of people with depression.

Table 49 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of depression
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Pilkington et al Katz et al (2005) Patients with Homeopathic Fluoxetine – 20  HAMD score No results reported due to “Evidence for the
(2005) [Level II] major depressive remedy selected mg daily  CGI low recruitment effectiveness of homeopathy
[Level I] Low quality episodes of from a list of 30 increased to 40  SF-12 in depression is limited due
AMSTAR: 7/10 N=4 moderate severity remedies by a mg after 4 weeks to lack of clinical trials of
 QoL questionnaire
(HAMD score 17+) trained if no high quality.”
 WSDS
SR of homeopath improvement in
(using decision HAMD score, or  Pittsburgh Sleep
homeopathy for “Further research is
support software) placebo matched  Quality Index required, and should include
depression
tablets or questionnaire well-designed controlled
capsules  Treatment studies with sufficient
Credibility Side numbers of participants.”
Effects checklist
Heulluy (1985) Patients currently L72 (constituents Diazepam – dose Ratio of pre and post No difference – L72 as “The evidence base is
[Level II] under not specified) – and frequency scores for selected effective as diazepam currently weak.”
Low quality consultation for 20 drops, 4 times unknown items on HAMD scale
N=30 depression, daily for 31 days,
postmenopausal dose increased if
involution or required
thymo-effective
dystonia
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CGI, Clinical Global Improvement; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Scale; QoL, quality of life; SF-12, Short Form-12; SR,
systematic review; WSDS, Work and Social Disability Scale.
a
b
c

4.12.6 Heroin addiction

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with a heroin addiction was assessed
in one Level I/III systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in
Table 50. The authors conducted a broad review of the efficacy of individualised homeopathy across
a range of clinical areas. One study was identified that assessed the efficacy of homeopathy
compared to placebo for heroin detoxification (Bakshi, 1990). The study was either a Level II or Level
III-1 study; however, the method of allocation was not described and it is therefore not clear whether
the study was randomised or pseudo-randomised. It was reported that overall homeopathy was
“superior to placebo”; however, the outcome measure used to assess treatment superiority was not
clear. Linde and Melchart (1998) gave the study a Jadad score of 1 and an internal validity score of 2.
They stated that the reporting of the trial by Bakshi (1990) was “totally insufficient” and “completely
inassessible”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified one small prospectively designed and controlled
study (poor quality; 60 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with placebo for the
treatment of people with a heroin addiction. LOC: Very low.
with a heroin addiction.

Table 50 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of heroin addiction
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Bakshi (1990) Patients with a heroin Individual Placebo Unclear “Homeopathy superior to “Totally insufficient report –
Melchart (1998) [Level II or Level addiction simillimum placebo.” completely inassessible.”
d
[Level I/III] III-1]
e
AMSTAR: 8/11 Quality: 1, 2
N=60
SR of homeopathy
for multiple
conditions
a
b
c
d
The study was either randomised or pseudo-randomised; however, the allocation of participants was not described.
e
Quality assessed using (i) Jadad score (out of 5); (ii) internal validity score (out of 6)

4.13 Reproductive system and breast disorders

4.13.1 Premenstrual syndrome
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of women with premenstrual syndrome (PMS)
was assessed in three systematic reviews as summarised in Table 51 and Table 52. In total, the
systematic reviews included five Level II studies (Table 51).
Table 51 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of premenstrual syndrome
Study ID
Laister (2008) Yakir et al Chapman et al Kirtland Yakir et al
[Level II] (2001) (1994) (1994) (1994)
[Level II] [Level II] [Level II] [Level II]
Davidson et al
(2011)    
Systematic review
[Level I]
Stevinson and
Ernst (2001) 
[Level I]
Linde and
Melchart (1998)  
[Level I]
The systematic review by Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) analysed all Level II studies of
homeopathy for psychiatric conditions. Four Level II studies were identified for the PMS indication.
Laister (2008) (good quality), Yakir et al (2001) (fair quality), and Chapman et al (1994) (fair quality)
were all Level II studies that investigated the effect of individualised homeopathy in women with
PMS. The results of a Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) in Yakir et al (2001) were “suggestive
of greater benefit for homeopathy”; however the systematic reviewer noted the limitation of the
small trial sample size (N=23). Laister (2008) found that “homeopathic simillimum was not effective
in treating PMS”. Chapman et al (1994) found that there was no significant difference in the rate of
response between the homeopathy and placebo groups. Indeed, a high placebo response rate of 60%
was noted. Kirtland (1994) was a poor-quality Level II study that examined the effect of homeopathic
Folliculinum compared with placebo in women with PMS. The results of a MDQ and Premenstrual
Assessment Form “suggested an effect for homeopathy”; however, no further details were provided.
Overall, Davidson et al (2011) concluded that there is “little evidence of homeopathy for
premenstrual problems, other than the one study with a small sample size”.
Stevinson and Ernst (2001) (AMSTAR score of 6/10) conducted a systematic review that aimed to
determine whether the use of complementary and alternative therapies for PMS is supported by
evidence of effectiveness from rigorous clinical trials. The literature search identified one relevant
Level II study (Chapman et al, 1994) for the homeopathy intervention. The authors commented that
“a placebo response of 47% in the pre-treatment phase illustrates the powerful effect of placebo on
premenstrual symptoms and suggests that the depth and empathy of the homeopathic interview
may have a therapeutic effect”. Whilst the quality of Chapman et al (1994) was not specified,
Stevinson and Ernst (2001) stated that “although it was rigorously designed, the selection criteria

were so strict that only 10 of the 205 women screened actually participated. The lack of statistical
power renders the results inconclusive”. Consequently, Stevinson and Ernst (2001) concluded that
“the current evidence for homeopathy is not particularly promising, with trial results indicating little
more than a placebo response”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) performed a systematic review that examined the
efficacy of individualised homeopathy on a variety of clinical conditions. The authors identified two
Level II studies (Chapman et al, 1994; Yakir et al, 1994) for the PMS indication. Similar to all of the
above systematic reviews, Linde and Melchart (1998) also reported that the homeopathy and
placebo groups experienced a similar response in Chapman et al (1994). Whilst a Jadad score of 4
was given, it was noted that Chapman et al (1994) was a well-planned trial but “recruitment failed
completely – totally insufficient sample size”. In the second included Level II study (Yakir et al, 1994),
Linde and Melchart (1998) observed that there was “greater improvement in homeopathy group”.
However, the significance of inter-group differences was not stated. A quality assessment of Yakir et
al (1994) was not performed as the report was only available as an abstract. Linde and Melchart
(1998) did not formulate a conclusion about the effect of homeopathy for the treatment of women
with PMS.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of medium quality identified five randomised controlled trials (poor to
the treatment of women with premenstrual syndrome. LOC: Very low - low.
placebo for the treatment of women with premenstrual syndrome.

Table 52 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of premenstrual syndrome
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Davidson et al Laister (2008) Women with Individualised Placebo MDQ Homeopathic simillimum “Little evidence of efficacy
(2011) [Level II] premenstrual homeopathy not effective in treating of homeopathy for
[Level I] Good quality syndrome PMS premenstrual problems,
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=39 other than in one study with
a small sample size.”
Yakir et al (2001) Women with Individualised Placebo MDQ Suggestive of greater
SR of
[Level II] premenstrual homeopathy benefit for homeopathy,
homeopathy
Fair quality syndrome but small sample size
for multiple
conditions N=23
Chapman et al Women with Individualised Placebo Rate of response No significant difference

(1994) premenstrual homeopathy between treatment
[Level II] syndrome groups. High placebo
Fair quality response rate
N=10 (homeopathy: 40%;
placebo: 60%)
Kirtland (1994) Women with Folliculinum 15C Placebo Each item on MDQ, PAF Suggests an effect for
[Level II] premenstrual homeopathy
Poor quality syndrome
N=31
Stevinson and Chapman et al Not reported. Homeopathy, 3 Placebo Diary “A placebo response of “The current evidence for
Ernst (2001) (1994) Assumed to be doses monthly for 47% in the pretreatment homeopathy is not
[Level I] [Level II] women with 4 cycles washout phase illustrates particularly promising, with
AMSTAR: 6/10 Quality not premenstrual the powerful effect of trial results indicating little
specified syndrome placebo on premenstrual more than a placebo
SR of CAM for N=10 symptoms and suggests response.”
PMS that the depth and
empathy of the
homeopathic interview
may have a therapeutic

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
effect.”
Linde and Chapman et al Women aged Individual Placebo Number of patients Similar response in both Not reported
Melchart (1994) between 18-45 simillimum given in assessed globally as groups. Significance of
(1998) [Level II] years with 3 doses at 12 hour improved inter-group differences
d premenstrual intervals, repeated not reported
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=10 syndrome or new remedy at  Intervention group: 2/5
follow-up (40%)
 Control group: 3/5 (60%)
SR of
homeopathy Yakir et al (1994) Women with Individual Placebo Number of patients Greater improvement in
for multiple [Level II] premenstrual simillimum assessed globally as homeopathy group.
conditions Quality not syndrome improved Significance of inter-
specified group differences not
N=23 reported
 Intervention group: 75%
 Control group: 25%
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; MDQ, Menstrual Distress Questionnaire; PAF,
Premenstrual Assessment Form; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.13.2 Lactation in postpartum women who elect not to breastfeed

The effectiveness of homeopathy for suppressing the symptoms of lactation in postpartum women
who elect not to breastfeed was assessed in one systematic review (Oladapo and Fawole, 2012;
AMSTAR score 8/10) as summarised in Table 53. This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the
effectiveness and safety of interventions used for suppression of lactation in postpartum women
(who have not breastfed or expressed breast milk) to determine which approach has the greatest
comparative benefits with least risk. Whilst a number of different interventions were assessed, the
results of a literature search on homeopathic preparations versus no treatment or placebo only
identified one relevant Level II study (Berrebi et al, 2001).
Berrebi et al (2001) assessed the effect of an unspecified homeopathic treatment on milk secretion,
breast engorgement and breast pain in postpartum women who elected not to breastfeed. The
results “suggested a lower risk of treatment failure when homeopathic preparation (with anti-
inflammatory and analgesic properties) was compared with placebo on days two and four
postpartum”. An overall quality rating for this Level II study was not specified; however, Oladapo and
Fawole (2012) noted that “the risk of bias for most reports was uncertain as they contained little
methodological description”. Indeed, Berrebi et al (2001) received an “unclear” risk of bias rating for
random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding for lactation and adverse events,
selective reporting and other bias. Oladapo and Fawole (2012) concluded that “this review did not
show sufficient evidence to indicate if other pharmacologic agents (including homeopathic
preparations) are useful in suppressing the symptoms of lactation postpartum, as they are all based
on individual small trials”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (quality
not reported; 71 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for suppression of lactation
in postpartum women who had elected not to breastfeed. LOC: Very low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the suppression of
lactation in postpartum women who elect not to breastfeed.

Table 53 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for suppressing lactation in postpartum women who elect not to breastfeed
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Oladapo and Berrebi et al Postpartum Five homeopathic pills Placebo. All Milk secretion (VAS) “Berrebi 2001 (71 women) “This review did not show
Fawole (2012) (2001) women who twice daily for 10 days. patients received suggested a lower risk of sufficient evidence to
[Level I] [Level II] elected not All patients received an an anti- Breast engorgement treatment failure when indicate if other
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not to anti-inflammatory inflammatory (VAS) homeopathic preparation pharmacologic agents
specified breastfeed treatment (naproxine- treatment (with anti-inflammatory (includes homeopathic
SR of CAM for the N=71 Apranax) for 5 days. (naproxine- Breast pain (VAS) and analgesic properties) preparation) are useful in
suppression of Apranax) for 5 was compared with suppressing the symptoms of
lactation days placebo on days two and lactation postpartum, as they
four postpartum.” are all based on individual
small trials.”
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c

4.14 Respiratory and allergic

4.14.1 Adenoid vegetation in children
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of children with adenoid vegetation was
assessed in one systematic review (Altunc et al, 2007; AMSTAR score 6/10) as summarised in Table
54. The systematic review included two Level II studies (Furuta et al, 2003; Feuchter et al, 2001). In
Furuta et al (2003) (Jadad score 4), there was no significant difference in the size of adenoid
vegetation or symptom questionnaire between the homeopathy and placebo groups. There were
also no adverse events reported. In Feuchter et al (2001) (Jadad score 5), there was no significant
difference in the need for adenoidectomy after three months of treatment between the homeopathy
and placebo groups. A number of adverse events were reported in both groups. The authors
concluded that “homeopathic treatments were not effective for reducing the size of adenoid
vegetations and preventing the need for adenoidectomy”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified two randomised controlled trials (medium to
good quality; 40 and 97 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
children with adenoid vegetation. LOC: Low.
placebo for the treatment of children with adenoid vegetation.

Table 54 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of adenoid vegetation
Study ID Included Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic
Level of study population the systematic review review
a
evidence Level of interpretation
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Altunc et al Furuta et al Patients with Standardised and individualised Placebo Size of adenoid No significant difference “Homeopathic
(2007) (2003) adenoid homeopathy, material potencies, 4 months, vegetation treatments were
[Level I] [Level II] vegetation; treatment regimen not reported not effective for
d Symptom No significant difference
AMSTAR: 6/10 Jadad score 4 Intervention  Agraphis nutans 6C potency reducing the size
group and questionnaire of adenoid
N=40  Thuya 6C potency
SR of control group:  Adenoid 21C potency in addition to Adverse events No adverse events vegetations and
homeopathy 3-7 years old; individualised remedies preventing the
for multiple 57% male need for
conditions adenoidectomy.”
Feuchter et al Patients with Standardised homeopathy, material Placebo Need for No significant difference
(2001) adenoid potencies, 3 months adenoidectomy
[Level II] vegetation;  Nux vomica D200 potency, 5 globules after 3 months
d Intervention of treatment
Jadad score 5 once at the start of the study
N=97 and control  Okoubaka D3 potency, 15 globules daily
group: mean Adverse events Main adverse events:
before meals from the first day for 4 acute inflammation of the
age 6 years; weeks
65% male middle ear (5
 Tuberculinum D200 potency, 5 globules homeopathy, 6 placebo),
once 4 weeks after the start of the study influenza (4 in both
Concomitant  Barium iodatum D4 potency, 3 tablets groups), acute tonsillitis (3
treatment: daily before meals from weeks 4-8 homeopathy, 5 placebo),
acute
 Barium iodatum, D6 potency, 3 tablets cough (5 homeopathy),
intercurrent
daily for 4 weeks from weeks 8-12 scarlet fever (2 in both
diseases were
groups), rhinitis (2 in both
treated
groups), digestive
homeopathically
complaints (1 in both
if possible so as
groups)
not to
compromise the
effect of
homeopathic
remedies

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; D, decimal; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.14.2 Allergic rhinitis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (also referred to as pollinosis
and hay fever) was assessed in five systematic reviews (Bellavite et al, 2011; Cucherat et al, 2000;
Ernst, 2011; Linde et al, 1997; Passalacqua et al, 2006) as summarised in Table 55 and Table 56.
Overall, the six reviews included 14 Level II studies and two Level III-2 studies (see Table 55).
Table 55 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of allergic rhinitis
Systematic review
Ernst (2011) Passalacqua Cucherat et Linde et al Bellavite et
[Level I] et al (2006) al (2000) (1997) al (2011)
[Level I] [Level I] [Level I] [Level I/III]
Kim et al (2005)
 
[Level II]
Aabel (2001)

[Level II]
Aabel et al (2000)
 
[Level II]
Aabel (2000)
 
[Level II]
Taylor et al (2000)
 
[Level II]
Weiser et al (1999)
 
[Level II]
Wiesenauer & Ludtke (1995)

  
[Level II]
Wiesenauer et al (1990)
 
Study ID
[Level II]
Wiesenauer & Ludtke (1987)


[Level II]
Reilly et al (1986)
   
[Level II]
Reilly and Taylor (1985)


[Level II]
Wiesenauer and Gaus (1985)

   
[Level II]
Hardy (1984)

[Level II]
Wiesenauer et al (1983)
 
[Level II]
Witt et al (2005)

[Level III-2]
Micciche et al (1998)

[Level III-2]

effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a range of conditions including respiratory
allergies. The review included the majority of the Level II and III-2 trials (11 Level II studies and two
Level III-2 studies). The method used to assess the quality of the included studies was unclear,
although the relatively poor quality was alluded to throughout the review. The authors suggested
that the “major quality problems in most trials” were the limited details provided about allocation
concealment methods, imprecise outcomes, and the poor reporting of dropouts and withdrawals.
Bellavite et al (2011) stated that any meta-analysis was precluded due to the poor quality of many
trials and the high level of heterogeneity. Instead, the systematic review authors offered a “semi-
quantitative” evaluation when multiple studies on the same homeopathic approach and indication
were available. They concluded that, for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, there was “strong positive
evidence” for the effectiveness of homeopathic Galphimia glauca; “good positive evidence” for the
effectiveness of individualised homeopathy; and “unclear or conflicting evidence” for the
effectiveness of homeopathic immunotherapy.
Passalacqua et al (2006) (AMSTAR score 4/10) performed a broad systematic review of
complementary and alternative medicines that are commonly used in patients with rhinitis and
asthma. The review included seven Level II studies that examined various homeopathic interventions
in patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. Of the seven studies, six were given Jadad
scores of 5 (Aabel, 2000; Aabel et al, 2000; Kim et al, 2005; Reilly et al, 1986; Taylor et al, 2000;
Weiser et al, 1999) and one received a Jadad score of 4 (Wiesenauer and Gaus, 1985). The
overwhelming majority of outcomes across the trials found no significant difference between the
homeopathic interventions and placebo.
Passalacqua et al (2006) reported the results of the individual studies in a way that was difficult to
interpret. For example, the results of Reilly et al (1986) were reported as a “decrease in symptom
score, visual analog scale, and use of antihistamines”; however, it was not clear whether the
decrease referred to a decrease within the homeopathy group compared to baseline, or a decrease
relative to placebo. Overall, Passalacqua et al (2006) concluded that the few positive results
described in allergic rhinitis in good-quality trials were counterbalanced by an equal number of
negative trials.
Linde et al (1997) (AMSTAR score 9/11) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that aimed
to “assess whether the effect seen with homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that seen with
placebo”. Linde et al (1997) identified six Level II studies that examined the effects of homeopathic
treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis. Three studies received a Jadad score of 3 (Reilly and
Taylor, 1985; Wiesenauer et al, 1990; Wiesenauer and Ludtke, 1995), two studies received Jadad
scores of 4 (Wiesenauer et al, 1983; Wiesenauer and Gaus, 1985), and one study received a Jadad
score of 5 (Reilly et al, 1986) (see Table 56). Linde et al (1997) noted that all of the trials that
examined allergic rhinitis had a high number of dropouts and withdrawals.
In contrast to the approach taken by Bellavite et al (2011), Linde et al (1997) undertook a meta-
analysis of the latter four Level II studies (by Wiesenauer and others) that examined homeopathic
Galphimia glauca in patients with allergic rhinitis. The raw data from continuous outcomes were
used to calculate odds ratios by the authors of the systematic review. The odds ratios of all of the
four individual studies favoured homeopathy, and in two of the four studies the result was
statistically significant. After the results were pooled, the odds ratio of 1.87 (95% CI 1.37, 2.56)

suggested that Galphimia glauca is significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of
allergic rhinitis. Nevertheless, the overall conclusion of the systematic review by Linde et al (1997)
was that there is “insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for
any single clinical condition”.
Ernst (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of
homeopathic Galphimia glauca in patients with allergic rhinitis. The review included the same four
Level II studies that were meta-analysed by Linde et al (1997) (Wiesenauer et al, 1983; Wiesenauer
and Gaus, 1985; Wiesenauer et al, 1990; and Wiesenauer and Ludtke, 1995). Ernst (2011) reported
that three of the Level II studies (two with Jadad scores of 4 and one with a Jadad score of 5) found
significant improvements in the primary outcome (a non-validated symptom scale; self-assessed by
the patient and verified by the physician) in favour of Galphimia glauca over placebo. However, one
study (Wiesenauer and Gaus, 1985; Jadad score 5) found no significant inter-group differences. The
conclusion drawn in the systematic review was that there is some evidence to suggest that
Galphimia glauca may be effective for symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis; however the
preliminary studies require independent replication.
Finally, Cucherat et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) aimed to answer the question of “whether there
is any evidence from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is efficacious for the treatment
of disease in humans”. The systematic review included one Level II study of acute allergic rhinitis
(Reilly et al, 1986). Reilly et al (1986) used a visual analogue scale to compare overall symptom
intensity between allergic rhinitis patients treated with homeopathy or placebo. A significant
difference was reported between the groups that favoured homeopathy (p=0.018). The quality of the
study was not reported by Cucherat et al (2000), although a comment was made that overall the
studies of high methodological quality were more likely to have negative results in terms of the
efficacy of homeopathy, compared to low quality studies. Cucherat et al (2000) concluded that there
is insufficient evidence to conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective for any condition examined
in their review, which included allergic rhinitis.
Reviewer comments
Poor reporting of the individual study results was a major limitation of the systematic reviews,
particularly those conducted by Bellavite et al (2011) and Passalacqua et al (2006). For example, it
was commonly stated that homeopathy was “better than placebo” with no mention of the statistical
significance of the results. It was unclear whether the lack of numerical data stemmed from the
individual Level II studies or the review itself, however if the limitation was with the Level II studies
then this should have been stated to clarify the omission. Similarly, it was difficult to ascertain
whether results such as “significant relief in verum group” were referring to a significant
improvement from baseline or a significant improvement compared to placebo. This made it difficult
for the evidence reviewer to critique the overall conclusions drawn by the systematic review authors.
The evidence reviewer notes that it was often difficult to determine from the systematic reviews
whether the studies examined allergic or non-allergic rhinitis. Where possible, studies that related to
allergic rhinitis (where the systematic review explicitly used the word “allergic”) have been discussed
in Section 4.14.2 and studies that related to non-allergic rhinitis (where none of the systematic
reviews explicitly used to word “allergic”) have been discussed in Section 4.14.7; however, it is
possible that the studies have not always been correctly categorised.
Evidence statement

Five systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified 13 randomised controlled trials
(unreported or medium to good quality; total of 1436 participants, range: 39-243) that compared
homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with allergic rhinitis.
Though not the largest study identified in this body of evidence, and while it is below the agreed
threshold for a sufficiently sized study, one good quality study with 144 participants (Reilly et al,
1986) reported a significant difference in favour of homeopathy over placebo. However, the findings
of this study were not confirmed by other good quality, sufficiently sized studies.
Overall, these studies are of insufficient quality and/or size to warrant further consideration of their
findings. LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with allergic rhinitis.
Two systematic reviews of poor quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (good
quality; 147 participants) and two prospectively designed, non-randomised controlled studies
(quality not reported; 70 and 178 participants) that compared homeopathy with other therapies
(including anti-histamines, cortisone and intranasal cromolyn sodium) for the treatment of people
with allergic rhinitis.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with allergic rhinitis.

Table 56 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the systematic Systematic review
Level of Level of population review interpretation
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst (2011) Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia Placebo Symptom rating Differences between groups were “Three RCTs reported
[Level I] Ludtke (1995) with glauca-D4; scales (not statistically significant only for ocular significant result in favour of
AMSTAR: 5/10 [Level II] allergic dosage validated; self- symptoms. GG over placebo, while one
d rhinitis individualised; assessed by the study failed to yield significant
Jadad score 4 Improvement by end of treatment in
SR of N=164 duration of 4 patient and intervention group [89% ocular, 80% nasal] inter-group differences. No
homeopathy weeks verified by the and comparator group [63% ocular, 69% serious adverse effects were
for allergic physician) nasal]. reported in any of the trials”.
rhinitis Adverse events No adverse events were reported in
“In conclusion, three of the
intervention group.
four currently available
Wiesenauer et al Patients Galphimia Placebo Symptom rating Statistically significant difference (p=NR) placebo-controlled RCTs of
(1990) with glauca-C2; scales (not Improvement by end of treatment in homeopathic GG suggest this
[Level II] allergic dosage validated; self- intervention group [88% ocular, 76% nasal] therapy is an effective
Jadad score 4
d rhinitis individualised; assessed by the and comparator group [60% ocular, 67% symptomatic treatment for
duration of 33 patient and nasal]. hay fever. There are, however,
N=243
days on average verified by the important caveats. Most
physician) essentially, independent
replication would be required
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia 2 groups: Symptom rating No significant difference. before GG can be considered
Gaus (1985) with glauca -D6; Placebo; scales (not Improvement by end of treatment in for the routine treatment of
[Level II] allergic dosage Galphimia validated; self- intervention group [80% ocular, 78% nasal], hay fever.”
d rhinitis individualised; assessed by the
Jadad score 5 glauca diluted diluted homeopathy remedy group [66%
duration of 5 -6 patient and
N=213 by factor of 10 ocular, 51% nasal], placebo group [65%
weeks on verified by the ocular, 58% nasal].
average physician)
Adverse events No adverse events were noted
Wiesenauer et al Patients Galphimia Placebo Symptom rating Statistically significant difference (p=NR)
(1983) with glauca-D4; scales (not Improvement by end of treatment in
[Level II] allergic dosage validated; self- intervention group [81% (95% CI 65, 92)] and
d rhinitis individualised; assessed by the
Jadad score 5 comparator group [57% (95% CI 39, 74)]
N=121 duration of 39 patient and
verified by the

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
days on average physician)
Adverse events Adverse events were noted only in the

comparator group
Passalacqua et Kim et al (2005) Patients Homeopathic Placebo Three QoL Significant improvement in active group “Some positive results were
al (2006) [Level II] with grass, trees, questionnaires (compared to placebo or baseline?) described in rhinitis in good-
d allergic weeds mix quality trials, but an equal
AMSTAR: 4/10 N=40 rhinitis number of negative studies
counterbalance the positive
Aabel (2000) Patients Birch 30c Placebo Rhinitis No effect on symptoms ones.”
SR of
[Level II] with symptoms
homeopathy d
Jadad score 5 seasonal “It is not possible to provide
for allegeric
N=80 allergic evidence-based
rhinitis and
rhinitis recommendations for the use
allergic asthma
Aabel et al Patients Birch 30c Placebo Rhinitis No effect on symptoms of homeopathy to treat
(2000) with symptoms allergic rhinitis.”
[Level II] seasonal
d allergic
Jadad score 5
N=70 rhinitis
Taylor et al Patients 30c dilution of Placebo VAS No difference between groups

(2000) with various allergens
[Level II] perennial
d
Symptom score No difference between groups
Jadad score 5 allergic
N=51 rhinitis
PNIF morning Increase (in homeopathy group?). No
and evenings mention of placebo or between-group
differences
Weiser et al Patients Nasal Luffa Nasal cromone Rhinitis Homeopathy and nasal cromone are
(1999) with compositum symptoms equivalent
[Level II] seasonal Heel
d allergic
Jadad score 5
N=147 rhinitis

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Reilly et al Patients 30c dilution grass Placebo Symptom score Decrease (presumably in homeopathy
(1986) with pollen group?). No mention of placebo or between-
[Level II] seasonal group differences
d allergic
Jadad score 5
rhinitis VAS Decrease (presumably in homeopathy
N=144 (reported group?). No mention of placebo or between-
incorrectly in SR group differences
as N=158)
Use of Decrease (presumably in homeopathy
antihistamines group?). No mention of placebo or between-
group differences
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia Conventional NR No significant difference between active and
Gaus (1985) with homeopathic dilution/placebo placebo treatments
[Level II] allergic dilution
d oculo-
Jadad score 4
N=164 rhinitis
Cucherat et al Reilly et al Patients Fixed, mixed Placebo VAS of overall Significant difference in favour of “The strength of this evidence
(2000) (1986) with grass pollens symptom homeopathy (p=0.018) is low because of the low
[Level I] [Level II] allergic 30°C intensity methodological quality of the
AMSTAR: Quality not rhinitis trials. Studies of high
e methodological quality were
10/11 specified
N=144 (reported more likely to be negative
SR of incorrectly in SR than the lower quality studies.
homeopathy as N=158) Further high quality studies
for multiple are needed to confirm these
conditions results.”
“It is clear that the strength of

available evidence is
insufficient to conclude that
homeopathy is clinically
effective.”

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
all clinical conditions and is
not specific to allergic rhinitis)
f
Linde et al Reilly et al Patients Pollen C30 Placebo VAS Odds ratio favoured homeopathy The pooled fixed effects and
(1997) (1986) with improvement pooled random effects of four
[Level I] [Level II] allergic (mm) Level II studies of Galphimia
AMSTAR: 9/11 Quality score rhinitis glauca for pollinosis found an
g odds ratio of 1.87 (95% CI
100/93
SR of N=144 (reported 1.37, 2.56) at 4 weeks (as per
homeopathy incorrectly in SR Erratum in Linde, 1998)
for multiple as N=162)
conditions f
“The results of our meta-
Reilly and Taylor Patients Pollen C30 Placebo Global Odds ratio favoured homeopathy analysis are not compatible
(1985) with assessment with the hypothesis that the
[Level II] allergic patient clinical effects of homeopathy
Quality score rhinitis are completely due to
g
60/50 placebo. However, we found
N=39 insufficient evidence from
f these studies that
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia D4 Placebo Improvement Odds ratio favoured homeopathy. homeopathy is clearly
Ludtke (1995) with ocular Intervention (responder/ efficacious for any single
[Level II] allergic symptoms randomised): 50/82 clinical condition.”
Quality score rhinitis Control (responder/ randomised): 36/82
g
60/79 Odds ratio (95% CI): 2.00 (1.07, 3.72)
N=164
f
Wiesenauer et al Patients Galphimia C2 Placebo Improvement Odds ratio favoured homeopathy.
(1990) with ocular Intervention (responder/ randomised):
[Level II] allergic symptoms 75/121
g
60/86 Odds ratio (95% CI): 2.19 (1.31, 3.67)
N=243
f
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia D6 Placebo Improvement Odds ratio showed no difference between
Gaus (1985) with ocular homeopathy and placebo.
[Level II] allergic symptoms Intervention (responder/ randomised):

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Quality score rhinitis 28/71
g
80/79 Control (responder/ randomised): 24/71
N=142 Odds ratio (95% CI): 1.28 (0.64, 2.53)
f
Wiesenauer et al Patients Galphimia D4 Placebo Improvement Odds ratio favoured homeopathy.
(1983) with ocular Intervention (responder/ randomised):
[Level II] allergic symptoms 30/61
g
80/79 Odds ratio (95% CI): 1.94 (0.93, 4.04)
N=121
Bellavite et al Kim et al (2005) Patients H.I.T. prepared Placebo Symptoms, Better clinical changes in homeopathy group The results of the included
(2011) [Level II] with from individual quality-of-life as compared with placebo studies were combined and
[Level I/III] Quality not allergic allergen questionnaires classified into one of the
AMSTAR: 5/10 specified rhinitis following levels of evidence by
N=40 the systematic reviewers:
SR of  Strong positive evidence
 Good positive evidence
homeopathy
 Unclear or conflicting evidence
for multiple
Aabel (2001) Patients Homeopathic Placebo Symptoms Similar improvement in homeopathy and  Negative scientific evidence
conditions
[Level II] with birch pollen (VAS) placebo The evidence for the
Quality not allergic Betula 30c effectiveness of homeopathy
specified rhinitis for the treatment of
N=51 respiratory allergies was
categorised by Bellavite et al
(2011) as follows:
h
Aabel (2000) Children Homeopathic Placebo Symptoms Homeopathy significantly worse than Strong positive evidence :
[Level II] with birch pollen (VAS) placebo Galphimia glauca (low
Quality not allergic Betula 30c homeopathic dilutions) in
specified rhinitis allergic oculorhinitis
N=73
i
Good positive evidence :
Individualised homeopathy in
allergic rhinitis

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Aabel et al Patients Homeopathic Placebo Symptoms Slightly less symptoms during 10 days;
(2000) with birch pollen scores aggravation after taking homeopathy Unclear or conflicting
j
[Level II] allergic Betula 30c evidence :
Quality not rhinitis Homeopathic immunotherapy
specified of allergic rhinitis
N=66
Taylor et al Patients Individual Placebo (H.I.T.) Symptoms Slightly better outcomes in homeopathy
(2000) with allergen (VAS) and nasal group
[Level II] allergic air flux tests
Quality not rhinitis
specified
N=50
Weiser et al Patients Low dilution Standard Symptoms and Equivalence of homeopathy and
(1999) with homeopathic intranasal quality-of-life conventional therapy
[Level II] allergic complex therapy based questionnaire
Quality not rhinitis formulation on cromolyn
specified Luffa sodium
N=146 compositum
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphima 4x Placebo Eye and nose Significant relief in homeopathy group
Ludtke (1995) with symptoms
[Level II] allergic
Quality not oculo-
specified rhinitis
N=115
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia 2c Placebo Eye and nose Significantly less eye symptoms in
Ludtke (1987) with symptoms homeopathy group
[Level II] allergic
Quality not oculo-
specified rhinitis
N=132
Reilly et al Patients Pollens 30c Placebo Symptoms H.I.T. better than placebo

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
(1986) with (H.I.T.) (VAS)
[Level II] allergic
Quality not oculo-
specified rhinitis
N=144
Wiesenauer and Patients Galphimia Placebo (e Eye and nose Trend to better improvement in the
Gaus (1985) with glauca 6x Galphimia symptoms homeopathic group; not statistically
[Level II] allergic dynamised glauca 6x non- significant; less symptoms in patients taking
Quality not oculo- dynamised) dynamised homeopathic medicine than
specified rhinitis other groups
N=164
Hardy (1984) Patients Homeopathic Placebo Symptoms H.I.T. better than placebo
[Level II] with immunotherapy
Quality not allergic (H.I.T.) made
specified oculo- with house dust
N=70 rhinitis potencies
(house
dust)
Witt et al (2005) Patients Classic Conventional Symptoms, Better outcomes in homeopathic group
[Level III-2] with homeopathy care quality-of-life
Quality not allergic questionnaires,
specified diseases costs
N=178 including
rhinitis
and
asthma
Micciche et al Children Homeopathic Conventional General Trend to better improvement in the

(1998) with protocol based therapy (anti- assessment homeopathic group
[Level III-2] allergic on three low- histaminic and
Quality not oculo- dilution drugs cortisone
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
specified rhinitis treatment)
N=70
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CI, confidence interval; D, decimal; GG, Galphimia glauca; H.I.T, homeopathic immunotherapy; NR, not
reported; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c
d
e
allocation (by a suitable randomisation method)”.
f
Odds ratios were calculated by the systematic reviews based on raw data provided in Level II studies.
g
Jadad score / IV score, where the scores are expressed as a percentage of the maxium possible score. Note: the maximum possible Jadad score is 5; the maximum possible internal validity
h
score is 7. Significant evidence of a clear benefit from >2 properly randomised trials, or from one properly conducted meta-analysis on homogenous trials.
i
Statistically significant evidence of a benefit from 1-2 properly randomised trials, or evidence of benefit from at least 1 randomised trial plus >1 observational cohort/case-control/non-
randomised trial.
j
Conflicting evidence from multiple trials or observational studies without a clear majority of the properly conducted trials finding evidence of benefit or ineffectiveness.

4.14.3 Asthma
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of asthma (including allergic and non-allergic
asthma) was assessed in six systematic reviews (Altunc et al, 2007; Bellavite et al, 2011; Cucherat et
al, 2000; Linde and Melchart, 1998; McCarney et al, 2008; Passalacqua et al, 2006) as summarised in
Table 57 and Table 58. Overall, the six systematic reviews included eight Level II studies (Freitas et al,
1995; Lara-Marquez et al, 1997; Lewith et al, 2002; Matusiewicz, 1995; Matusiewicz et al, 1999; Reilly
et al, 1994; Riveron-Garrote et al, 1998; White et al, 2003).
Table 57 Matrix indicating studies that were included in the systematic review of asthma
Systematic review
Bellavite McCarney Altunc et Passalacqua Cucherat Linde and
et al et al (2008) al (2007) et al (2006) et al Melchart
(2011) [Level I] [Level I] [Level I] (2000) (1998)
White et al (2003)
   
[Level II]
Lewith et al
(2002)   
[Level II]
Matusiewicz et al
(1999)  
[Level II]
Riveron-Garrote
et al (1998) 
Study IDs
[Level II]
Lara-Marquez et
al (1997)  
[Level II]
Freitas et al
(1995)  
[Level II]
Matusiewicz
(1995)  
[Level II]
Reilly et al (1994)
   
[Level II]
McCarney et al (2008) (AMSTAR score 9/11) undertook a Cochrane review of homeopathy for chronic
asthma. McCarney et al (2008) included six studies (see Table 58), comprehensive study details and a
meta-analysis. Four of the Level II studies identified were assessed to be medium to good quality,
including two with a Jadad quality assessment score of 4 (Freitas et al, 1995; Reilly et al, 1994) and
two with a score of 5 (Lewith et al, 2002; White et al, 2003). White et al (2003) compared the efficacy
of individualised homeopathy with placebo in patients with allergic asthma, aged five to 15 years. No
statistically significant differences were found between the treatment arms on any of the reported

outcomes, which included lung function (measured by peak expiratory volume), quality of life,
medication use, global assessment, and days off school. Similarly, the good quality trial by Lewith et
al (2002) examined lung function, medication use and subjective symptoms and found no significant
differences between the homeopathy and placebo groups.
Freitas et al (1995) reported no significant difference between homeopathy (blatta officinalis 6C) and
placebo on any outcome. However, the systematic review authors questioned whether the patient
population of that trial were truly asthmatic (eligible participants were children aged one to 12 years
who had experienced at least three bronchospastic episodes or who had a continuous wheeze for at
least three months). Finally, Reilly et al (1994) examined homeopathy in patients with allergic
asthma, the majority of whom were sensitive to house dust mite. Reilly et al (1994) reported
significant differences in favour of homeopathy based on the severity of symptoms measured on a
visual analogue scale (p=0.003) and also between the medians of the groups based on forced vital
capacity (p=0.03).
In addition to the studies outlined above, McCarney et al (2008) also identified two low quality
studies that examined the efficacy of homeopathy in patients with bronchial asthma. Matusiewicz et
al (1995) and Matusiewicz (1999) received Jadad scores of 1 and 2, respectively. In addition to
significant methodological flaws, the methods and results were difficult to interpret in both studies
due to poor reporting. Matusiewicz et al (1999) reported a “significant effect” for immune
functioning, global ratings and number of infections; however no p-values were reported and it was
unclear whether the “significant effect” referred to inter-group differences or differences in the
homeopathy arm from baseline to follow-up. Matusiewicz et al (1995) reported a significant benefit
in the homeopathy group based on peak expiratory flow; however, no p-value was provided to
support the finding. In addition, the authors of that study reported a “clear difference” in forced
expiratory volume, forced vital capacity and steroid use in favour of the homeopathy group; although
no p-values or standard deviations were reported.
Overall, the ability to pool the results of the six included studies was limited due to disparate
reporting of outcomes. The only outcome for which pooled effect sizes were estimable was forced
expiratory volume in adults. McCarney et al (2008) pooled the results from Lewith et al (2002),
Matusiewicz et al (1999) and Matusiewicz et al (1995) and no significant difference was observed
between treatment groups, based on a total of 366 participants (effect size: -0.06 litres; 95% CI -0.17,
0.04; p=0.24), see Table 59. McCarney et al (2008) concluded that there is “not enough evidence to
reliably assess” the efficacy of homeopathy in asthma. The authors highlighted the fact that the
results regarding lung function were mixed and that no trials included in their systematic review
found a significant difference between homeopathy and placebo on a validated symptom scale.
Finally, McCarney et al (2008) stated that although there is no plausible scientific rationale behind
homeopathy, there may be “non-specific benefits associated with a ‘holistic’ package of care”.
homeopathy in various conditions that commonly affect children and adolescents, including asthma.
Two of the Level II studies discussed above (Freitas et al, 2005; White et al, 2003) were identified that
compared the efficacy of homeopathy to placebo. One of the studies (Freitas et al, 2005; Jaded score
4) adopted a formulaic approach in which all patients received homeopathic blatta orentalis (6C
potency) for six months, and found no significant difference between the homeopathic remedy and
placebo in terms of intensity, frequency and duration of asthma attacks. Patients recruited into the

study by White et al (2003) (Jadad score 5) received individualised homeopathy for one year, and
reported no significant difference between the homeopathy and placebo groups on the “active
quality of living” subscale on the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire.
The Level II study by White et al (2003) was also included in the systematic review by Passalacqua et
al (2006) (AMSTAR score 4/10). The review examined the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment
of asthma and rhinitis. Passalacqua et al (2006) reported that White et al (2003) found no significant
differences between homeopathy and placebo on any of the four outcomes presented (asthma-
related quality of life, peak expiratory flow, use of β2-agonists, and missing days). The Level II studies
by Lewith et al (2002) and Reilly et al (1994) examined asthma-related outcomes (forced expiratory
volume, peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms and use of other asthma medications) in patients
with allergic asthma. The only significant inter-group difference on any outcome was a significant
improvement of asthma symptoms according to a visual analogue scale (Reilly et al, 1994), although
the p-value was not reported. Passalacqua et al (2006) concluded that “three well-conducted trials
showed no or marginal effects in asthmatic patients”.
In addition to most of the aforementioned studies (namely Lewith et al, 2002; Matusiewicz, 1995;
Matusiewicz et al, 1999; Reilly et al, 1994; White et al, 2003), Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score
5/10) also included a further two Level II studies (Lara-Marquez et al, 1997; Riveron-Garrote et al,
1998) in their systematic review. The review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy for
the treatment of upper airways and ear-nose-throat ailments, respiratory allergies, arthrorheumatic
diseases and osteoarthritis. According to Bellavite et al (2011), Riveron-Garrote et al (1998) reported
a higher reduction of asthma attacks in the homeopathy group compared to placebo; however it was
not clear from the systematic review whether this reduction was clinically or statistically significant.
Similarly, it was reported that Lara-Marquez et al (1997) found “significant changes” in laboratory
markers in favour of homeopathy; however, the clinical and statistical significance was also not clear
and there were only 19 participants in the study.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) conducted a systematic review that examined the
efficacy of individualised homeopathy across a number of clinical conditions. They also identified the
study of homeopathy for the treatment of allergic asthma by Lara-Marquez et al (1997) which,
according to Linde and Melchart (1998), was available as an abstract only. Based on the limited
information available, Linde and Melchart (1998) reported that homeopathy was “better than
placebo”; however, the outcome used to measure treatment superiority and the magnitude of the
difference between treatment groups was not clear.
Cucherat et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) conducted a broad review that aimed to answer the
question of “whether there is any evidence from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is
efficacious for the treatment of disease in humans”. Cucherat et al (2000) included one Level II study
in their review (Reilly et al, 1994), which showed a significant difference in favour of homeopathy
based on the severity of symptoms measured on a visual analogue scale (p=0.003). The authors
provided an overall, generalised conclusion that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is

Reviewer comments
McCarney et al (2008) provided a detailed discussion of the major limitations of the included studies.
Importantly, homeopathy was assessed in addition to conventional medications (in some cases for
ethical reasons), making it hard to determine whether homeopathy itself provides any benefit.
In addition, the interventions varied substantially between the included trials and the evidence
reviewer thought that some of the studies examined interventions that were not representative of
normal homeopathic treatment strategies. For example, Lewith et al (2002) and Reilly et al (1994)
used “one off” treatments, while in White et al (2003) patients were involved in six consultations,
extensive telephone contact and as many remedy changes as were deemed appropriate.
The evidence reviewer also notes that it was often difficult to determine from the systematic reviews
whether the studies examined allergic or non-allergic asthma. As such, only one ‘asthma’ section has
been included in the Overview Report which includes studies that probably examine both allergic and
non-allergic asthma.
Evidence statement
Six systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified eight randomised controlled trials (poor to
the treatment of people with asthma.
homeopathy and placebo in the treatment of people with asthma. LOC: Low - moderate.
placebo for the treatment of people with asthma.

Table 58 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of asthma
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et White et al Children with Individualised Placebo Quality-of-life No changes in quality of life, The results of the included
al (2011) (2003) allergic homeopathy questionnaires, small not significant studies were combined and
[Level I] [Level II] asthma (mild symptoms and tests improvement of symptoms in classified into one of the
AMSTAR: Quality not to moderate) homeopathy group following levels of evidence by
5/10 specified the systematic reviewers:
N=96  Strong positive evidence
 Good positive evidence
SR of
Lewith et al Allergic Allergen (dust mite) Placebo H.I.T. Symptoms (VAS) No final therapeutic effect, initial  Unclear or conflicting evidence
homeopathy
(2002) asthma 30c and expiration flux aggravation  Negative scientific evidence
for multiple
[Level II] (FEV) The evidence for the
conditions
Quality not effectiveness of homeopathy for
specified the treatment of respiratory
N=242 allergies was categorised by
Bellavite et al (2011) as follows:
Matusiewicz et al Patients with Homeopathic complex Placebo Use of unspecified Slight decrease of conventional
(1999) allergic Asthma H Inj. ‘standard‘ drugs, medication and infections; no Good positive evidence :
d
[Level II] asthma Plfugerplex, laboratory and change in spirometric tests Individualised homeopathy in
Quality not subcutaneously spirometric tests asthma
specified
N=84 Unclear or conflicting evidence :
e
Riveron-Garrote Patients with Individualised Placebo General symptoms Higher reduction of asthma Homeopathic immunotherapy of
et al (1998) allergic homeopathy and attack intensity attacks in homeopathy group asthma
[Level II] asthma
Quality not
specified
N=80
Lara-Marquez et Patients with Individualised Placebo Symptoms, Homeopathy better than

al (1997) allergic homeopathy spirometry placebo, significant changes of
[Level II] asthma parameters and laboratory markers
Quality not immunological

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
specified markers
N=19
Matusiewicz Patients with Homeopathic complex Placebo Respiratory tests Clinical improvement only in
(1995) allergic Engystol-N homeopathy group
[Level II] asthma
Quality not
specified
N=40
Reilly et al (1994) Patients with Unspecified ‘standard‘ Unspecified Symptoms (VAS) Less symptoms in the
[Level II] allergic drugs + allergen 30C ‘standard‘ and respiratory homeopathy group than placebo,
Quality not asthma (H.I.T.) drugs + tests no differences in tests
specified placebo
N=28
McCarney et White et al  Children with Any number of Placebo Days off school No statistically significant “There is not enough evidence to
al (2008) (2003) allergic individualised (measured as a differences between the reliably assess the possible role
[Level I] [Level II] asthma homeopathy change from the treatment groups of homeopathy in asthma. As
f diagnosed by
AMSTAR: Jadad score 5 prescriptions previous month; well as randomised trials, there
GP and
9/11 N=93 prescription
increased, no is a need for observational data
for either change, or reduced) to document the different
SR of beta-agonist methods of homeopathic
or
PEF No significant difference prescribing and how patients
homeopathy between treatment groups in
for asthma
corticosteroid respond. This will help to
inhaler in terms of improvement establish to what extent people
previous 3 respond to a ‘package of care’
months Asthma-related QoL No significant difference
between treatment and control rather than the homeopathic
 aged 5-15
intervention alone”.
years
Use of β2-agonists No significant difference in terms
of use of inhaler

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Global assessment No significant difference “The currently available evidence
of change between treatment groups is insufficient to assess reliably
the possible role of homeopathy
Adverse events No significant intergroup in the treatment of asthma.
differences reported Whilst the scientific rationale
behind homeopathy remains
unproven, non-specific benefits
associated with a ‘holistic’
package of care may exist”.
Lewith et al Patients with Isopathy (30C house Placebo Lung function No significant difference
(2002) mild to severe dust mite), 3 doses
allergic orally in 24 hours Use of β2-agonists No significant difference in
[Level II]
f asthma bronchodilator usage after
Jadad score 5
 positive skin
treatment of at 15 week follow- “The effect of homeopathy on
N=242 up
prick test to asthma has yet to be proven in a
house dust randomised study. However, the
mite with
Subjective No adverse events reported
varied quality of the studies
response symptoms
precludes us from extrapolating
greater than any effects observed to the
aeroallergens
general population level”.
tested
Matusiewicz et al Patients with 1 ampoule of Asthma Placebo Immune “Significant effect” reported – “No trials reported a significant
(1999) chronic H (a complex remedy functioning unclear whether this was difference on validated
[Level II] bronchial consisting of 14 between treatment groups of symptoms scales. There were
f asthma homeopathic from baseline to follow-up
Jadad score 2 conflicting results in terms of
N=84  diagnosis potencies of D3, D4, lung function between the
based on D5 and Global ratings “Significant effect” reported –
studies”
history, unclear whether this was
D6) injected
spirometry, between treatment groups of
subcutaneously at “There has been only a limited
physical from baseline to follow-up
examination
intervals of 5 to 7 days attempt to measure a ‘package
and Number of “Significant effect” reported – of care’ effect (i.e. the effect of
medication infections unclear whether this was the medication as well as the
use between treatment groups of consultation, which is considered
 Triamcinolone from baseline to follow-up a vital part of individualised

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
use for last 5 FVC No significant differences (2.7 homeopathic practice)”
years litres, SD: 0.91 in treatment
group; 2.74 litres, SD: 0.7 in the See Table 59 for results of the
control group) meta-analysis.
Medication use Study reported “inhaled

triamcinolone usage with
treatment leading to a significant
reduction (baseline 4.73mg
versus 2.3mg in the treatment
group; p<0.01; and 4.38mg
versus 4.51mg in the control
group; p>0.01.
PEF Significant difference between

homeopathy and control in
favour of homeopathy (no p-
value reported). PEF increased
from 200ml to 330ml in the
treatment group and decreased
from 210ml to 190ml in the
placebo group
Freitas et al Patients with Blatta officinalis C6, 2 Placebo Intensity of asthma No significant difference
(1995) at least 3 globules 3 times per attack between treatment groups
[Level II] bronchospasti day for 6 months
f c episodes Frequency of No significant difference
Jadad score 4
with intervals asthma attack between treatment groups
N=69
of 3 months Duration of asthma No significant difference
or less, or attack between treatment groups

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
continuous
wheeze for at
least 3
g
months
 aged 1-12
years
 approx. 50%
males and
females
Matusiewicz Patients with 1 ampoule Engystol N Placebo FEV There was a “clear difference”
(1995) corticosteroid (a complex remedy between treatment and control.
[Level II] -dependent consisting of the FEV litres improved from 1.7 at
f bronchial homeopathic baseline to 2.4 after treatment in
Jadad score 1
N=40 asthma remedies Vincetoxin the homeopathy group; placebo
diagnosis D6/D10/ group changed from 1.9 to 1.8
confirmed by D30, Sulfur D4/D10) litres, no SDs reported.
history and injected
spirometry subcutaneously at
intervals of 5 to 7
Patients days.
received FVC There was a “clear difference”
methylxanthi between treatment and control
nes for (treatment group: +1.3 litres
mucolysis and versus control group: 0 litres); no
tetracycline in p-values reported
case of Medication use There was a “clear difference”
exacerbations between treatment and control
in terms of oral steroid use (3 mg
per day in the treatment group
versus 7 mg in the control
group). No SD or p-values
reported

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Reilly et al (1994) Patients with Homeopathic Placebo Severity symptoms Highly significant difference
[Level II] allergic preparation of the quantified by a 100 between treatment groups
f asthma individual allergens in mm VAS (p=0.003). Improvement of
Jadad score 4
N=28  most with potency C30 (30 7.2mm (SD: 10.6mm) in the
sensitivity to dilution steps 1:100) treatment group; deterioration
house- prepared in a water- by 7.8mm (SD: 10.8mm) in the
dustmite alcohol solution and placebo group.
 age > 16 years
impregnated on
lactose/sucrose PEF No significant difference
globules (placebo between groups
impregnated with
diluent only). FVC Significant difference between
Treatment consisted the medians of the groups (0.36
of 3 doses of globules litres; 95% CI 0.03, 0.73; p-value
within 24 hours 0.03)
(once).
Altunc et al White et al Children with Individualised Placebo Active quality of No significant difference “Both RCTs reported no
(2007) (2003) allergic homeopathy, potency living subscale of differences compared with
[Level I] [Level II] asthma not reported, 1 year CAQ placebo on several outcome
AMSTAR: Jadad score 5
f  5-15 years old Various remedies in measures, including the
 54% male Adverse events Main adverse events include intensity, frequency and duration
6/10 N=93 different potencies
 Concomitant exacerbation of eczema (4H, 2P0 of asthma attacks”.
(no details reported).
treatment: β- and asthma (3 both), headache
SR of Adrenergic (3H), fever (1H), sickness (1H),
homeopathy inhalers (all
“The evidence from rigorous
rash (1P), depression and
for multiple patients), clinical trials of any type of
irritability (3P), sleeping
conditions inhaled therapeutic or preventive
difficulties (2P); 1 patients was
steroids (33H; intervention testing homeopathy
withdrawn because of adverse
36P), sodium for childhood and adolescence
cromoglycate events (cough, behaviour and
ailments is not convincing
(6H; 2P), sleeping disorders)
enough for recommendations in
salbutamol
any condition”.
nebules (1H)
Freitas et al Patients with Standardised Placebo Intensity of asthma No significant difference

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
(1995) asthma homeopathy, material attack
[Level II]  1-12 years old potencies, 6 months.
f
 51% male Frequency of No significant difference
Jadad score 4 Blatta orientalis 6C
 Concomitant asthma attack
N=86 potency, two globules
treatment: delivered 3 times
conventional Duration of asthma No significant difference
daily. attack
asthma
medicines (for
prevention or
crisis).
Passalacqua White et al Children with Individual Placebo plus Asthma-related QoL No difference between active Three well-conducted trials
et al (2006) (2003) allergic homeopathy plus drugs group and placebo found no or marginal effects in
[Level I] [Level II] asthma drugs asthmatic patients
f PEF No difference between active
group and placebo
4/10 N=93
Use of β2-agonists No difference between active
SR of group and placebo
homeopathy
for rhinitis Days off school No difference between active
and asthma (measured as a group and placebo
change from the
previous month;
increased, no
change, or reduced)
Lewith et al Patients with Dust mite Placebo FEV No difference between active
(2002) allergic homeopathy group and placebo
[Level II] asthma
f PEF No difference between active
Jadad score 5
group and placebo
N=242
Asthma symptoms No difference between active
group and placebo
Use of β2-agonists No difference between active

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
group and placebo
Asthma score No difference between active

group and placebo
Reilly et al (1994) Patients with 30c dilution of Placebo Severity symptoms Significant improvement (no p-
[Level II] allergic allergens quantified by a 100 value)
f asthma mm VAS
Jadad score 4
N=28 PEF No change
Pulmonary function No change
Histamine No change
challenge
Cucherat et Reilly et al (1994) Patients with Individualised Placebo VAS of overall Significant difference in favour of “The strength of this evidence is
al (2000) [Level II] allergic homeopathic symptom intensity homeopathy (p=0.003) low because of the low
[Level I] Quality not asthma immunotherapy methodological quality of the
h trials. Studies of high
AMSTAR: specified
10/11 N=28 methodological quality were
more likely to be negative than
SR of the lower quality studies. Further
homeopathy high quality studies are needed
for multiple to confirm these results.”
conditions
“It is clear that the strength of
available evidence is insufficient
to conclude that homeopathy is
clinically effective.”

all clinical conditions and is not
specific to asthma)
Linde and Lara-Marquez et Patients with Individualised Placebo Unclear “Homeopathy better than No specific conclusions provided

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Melchart al (1997) allergic simillimum placebo” regarding the efficacy of
(1998) [Level II] asthma homeopathy for allergic asthma
[Level I] Quality not were provided.
i
AMSTAR: assessed
8/11 N=19 The study was not included in
the meta-analysis as it was
SR of available as an abstract only.
homeopathy
for multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CAQ, Childhood Asthma Questionnaire; D, decimal; FEV, forced expiratory volume; FVC, forced vital
capacity; NR, not reported; PEF, peak expiratory flow; QoL, quality of life; SD, standard deviation; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c
d
Statistically significant evidence of a benefit from 1-2 properly randomised trials, or evidence of benefit from at least 1 randomised trial plus >1 observational cohort/case-control/non-
randomised trial.
e
Conflicting evidence from multiple trials or observational studies without a clear majority of the properly conducted trials finding evidence of benefit or ineffectiveness
f
g
The authors of the systematic review question whether this is truly asthma.
h
allocation (by a suitable randomisation method)”
i
Quality not assessed as the study was available as an abstract only at the time of publication

Table 59 Pooled results presented in McCarney et al (2008)

Outcome Patient population Intervention group Control group Measure of effect (95% p-value
a
CI) Heterogeneity
FEV1 Patients with chronic Formula homeopathy Placebo Mean difference: -0.06 Effect size: p=0.24
2
(1 Level II study, 2 Level III-2 asthma Mean (SD): NR Mean (SD): NR (-0.17 to 0.04) Heterogeneity: p=0.68 (I =0%)
studies; N=366) N=203 N=163
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FEV, forced expiratory volume; NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation.
a 2 2 2
Heterogeneity defined as follows: (i) no significant heterogeneity if Phet>0.1 and I <25%; (ii) mild heterogeneity if I <25%; moderate heterogeneity if I between 25-50%; substantial
2
heterogeneity I >50%.

4.14.4 Bronchitis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with bronchitis was assessed in one
humans”. The review included one Level II study (Diefenbach, 1997) that had investigated the effect
of the homeopathic treatment, Bronchiselect, in patients with bronchitis. Cucherat et al (2000)
reported that in this Level II study, there was no significant difference in the length of productive
cough between patients in the homeopathy and placebo groups. The quality of Deifenbach (1997)
was not formally assessed; however, a general comment was made in reference to all of the included
studies that “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the
trials”. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is
Evidence statement
One systematic review of good quality identified one medium-sized randomised controlled trial
(quality not reported; 258 participants) that compared homeopathy (Bronchiselect) with placebo for
the treatment of people with bronchitis. LOC: Low.
with bronchitis.

Table 60 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of bronchitis
Level of Level of population systematic review
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Cucherat et al Diefenbach (1997) Patients Bronchiselect Placebo Length of productive No significant difference “It is clear that the strength of
(2000) [Level II] with cough (p=0.86) available evidence is insufficient to
[Level I] Quality not bronchitis conclude that homeopathy is clinically
AMSTAR: 10/11 specified effective”
d
N=258
homeopathy clinical conditions and is not specific to
for multiple bronchitis)
conditions
a
b
c
d
209 participants evaluated.

4.14.5 Cough
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of cough was assessed in one systematic review
(Bellavite et al, 2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) as summarised in Table 61. The authors conducted a
broad review of homeopathy and immunology across a range of clinical areas. One Level II study was
identified that assessed the efficacy of homeopathy (Drosera) compared to placebo in patients with a
cough (Bordes and Dorfman, 1986). Patients were assessed for symptoms, and it was reported that
67% of patients in the homeopathy group and 27% of patients in the placebo group experienced a
reduction or disappearance of symptoms after one week. However, the significance of the findings
was unknown. The quality of the included study was not formally assessed by Bellavite et al (2011).
Bellavite et al (2011) did not provide any overall conclusion regarding the efficacy of homeopathy for
the treatment of cough in their systematic review.
Evidence statement
reported; 60 participants) that compared homeopathy (Drosera) with placebo for the treatment of
people with a cough. LOC: Very low.
with a cough.

Table 61 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a cough
a
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Bellavite et al Bordes and Dorfman Patients with Low-dilution (3C) Placebo Number of patients with Homeopathy group: Bellavite et al (2011) did not
(2011) (1986) a cough homeopathic significant reduction or 20/30 patients (66.67%); provide an overall
[Level I] [Level II] complex in syrup disappearance of Placebo group: 8/30 conclusion for the efficacy of
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality result not (Drosera) symptoms after one week patients (26.67%). No homeopathy in patients with
reported level of significance a cough.
SR of N=60 reported
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
a
b
c

4.14.6 Oral lichen planus

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of oral lichen planus was assessed in one
conducted a broad review of homeopathy and immunology across a range of clinical areas. One Level
II study was identified that assessed the efficacy of homeopathy (Ignatia 30c) in patients with oral
lichen planus (Mousavi et al, 2009). The systematic review did not provide any details regarding the
treatment that the comparator arm received, despite stating that Mousavi et al (2009) was a “single
blind randomised controlled clinical trial”. Mousavi et al (2009) assessed mean pain score and mean
lesion size and reported a significant difference in favour of Ignatia (p<0.05). The quality of the
included study was not formally assessed by Bellavite et al (2011). Bellavite et al (2011) did not
provide an overall interpretation of the evidence regarding the treatment of oral lichen planus with
homeopathy.
Reviewer comments
The comparator was not specified in the systematic review; however, the evidence reviewer obtained
a copy of the abstract of Mousavi et al (2009), which revealed that the unspecified comparator was
placebo.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of poor quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial (quality
not reported; 30 participants) that compared homeopathy (Ignatia) with placebo for the treatment
of people with oral lichen planus. LOC: Very low.
people with oral lichen planus.

Table 62 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of oral lichen planus
a
a c
evidence Quality
b
Quality Sample size
Bellavite et al Mousavi et al (2009) Patients with Ignatia 30C NR Mean pain score and Significant improvement The authors of the
(2011) [Level II] oral lichen mean lesion size (not in favour of Ignatia after 4 systematic review did not
[Level I] Quality result not planus reported separately) months of treatment; provide a conclusion about
AMSTAR: 5/10 reported p<0.05 the use of Ignatia in patients
N=30 with oral lichen planus
SR of
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c

4.14.7 Non-allergic rhinitis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of acute and chronic rhinitis was assessed in one
systematic review (Bellavite et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 5/10) as summarised in Table 63. Additional
systematic reviews were identified that examined homeopathy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis;
however, the evidence pertaining to allergic rhinitis/hay fever is presented in the “Allergic rhinitis”
evidence summary (see Section 4.14.2).
Bellavite et al (2011) conducted a broad review of homeopathy and immunology across a range of
clinical areas. Two Level II studies (Gassinger et al, 1981; Maiwald, 1988) and two Level III-2 studies
(Ammerschlager et al, 2005; Schmiedel and Klein, 2006) were identified that assessed the efficacy of
homeopathy compared to conventional treatments in patients with chronic or acute rhinitis. No
Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2 studies were identified that compared homeopathy with placebo for
the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis. The quality of the included studies was not formally assessed
by Bellavite et al (2011).
Gassinger et al (1981) and Maiwald (1988) both compared the efficacy of homeopathic remedies
(Eupatorium perfoliatum and Gripp-heel, respectively) to aspirin. Both studies reported equivalence
between the homeopathic treatments and aspirin in terms of symptom severity score; however, no
quantitative results were presented in Bellavite et al (2011).
The Level III-2 study by Schmiedel and Klein (2006) assessed patient-reported improvement within
three days in patients that received either “conventional treatment” (antihistamines, antitussives
and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) or the homeopathic complex Engystol. The systematic
review indicated that a higher proportion of patients who received Engystol reported an
improvement (77.1%) compared to those treated with conventional therapies (61.7%); however, the
significance of the results was not reported in Bellavite et al (2011).
Finally, a large Level III-2 study was performed by Ammerschlager et al (2005) in patients with rhinitis
and sinusitis. Patients that received the homeopathic intervention were treated with low-dilution
homeopathic Euphorbium compositum, and their disease specific symptoms were compared to
patients treated with xylometazoline. Bellavite et al (2011) reported that “clinical relevant
reductions” were observed in both treatment groups and that the treatments had equivalent
efficacy. The results were not reported separately according to rhinitis and sinusitis patient
populations in Bellavite et al (2011).
The systematic review by Bellavite et al (2011) concluded that there was “good positive evidence” for
the efficacy of Euphorbium compositum for the treatment of rhinitis, based on results that reported
equivalence with conventional therapy in one Level II study, and non-inferiority to xylometazoline in
one Level III-2 study.
Reviewer comments
The evidence reviewer notes that the results of the four included studies should be interpreted with
caution, as they all used ‘active’ comparators and the authors of the systematic review did not
comment on the appropriateness of the chosen comparators. In particular, the evidence reviewer
questions the use of aspirin for the treatment of rhinitis as there is some evidence that aspirin can
cause or exacerbate rhinitis.

The evidence reviewer also notes that it was often difficult to determine from the systematic reviews
whether the studies examined allergic or non-allergic rhinitis. Where possible, studies that related to
allergic rhinitis (where the systematic review explicitly used the word “allergic”) have been discussed
in Section 4.14.2 and studies that related to non-allergic rhinitis (where none of the systematic
reviews explicitly used to word “allergic”) have been discussed in Section 4.14.7; however, it is
possible that the studies have not always been correctly categorised.
Evidence statement
non-allergic rhinitis.
One systematic review of poor quality identified two randomised controlled trials (quality not
reported; 53 and 170 participants) and two prospectively designed, non-randomised controlled
studies (quality not reported; 397 and 739 participants) that compared homeopathy with other
therapies (including aspirin and xylometazoline) for the treatment of people with non-allergic
rhinitis.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with non-allergic
rhinitis.

Table 63 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Maiwald (1988) Patients with Homeopathic Aspirin Symptom Equivalence between homeopathy “Good positive evidence”
(2011) [Level II] acute rhinitis complex Gripp- severity score and aspirin for Euphorbium
[Level I] Quality not heel compositum in rhinitis,
AMSTAR: 5/10 reported based on positive evidence
N=170 from one Level II study and
SR of one Level III-2 study
Gassinger et al Patients with Eupatorium Aspirin Symptom Equivalence between homeopathy
homeopathy
(1981) acute rhinitis perfoliatum 2x severity score and aspirin
for multiple
conditions [Level II]
Quality not
reported
N=53
Schmiedel and Patients with Homeopathic Conventional Patient-reported Significant benefit in homeopathy
Klein (2006) acute rhinitis complex Engystol therapies improvement group (p<0.05)
[Level III-2] (antihistamines, within 3 days  Homeopathy group: 77.1%
Quality not antitussives,  Conventional treatment group: 61.7%
reported and
General and Homeopathic medicine equivalent
N=397 nonsteroidal
local symptoms to the conventional treatment
anti-
inflammatory
drugs)
Ammerschlager et Patients with Low-dilution Xylometazoline Disease specific Treatments had equivalent
al (2005) rhinitis and homeopathic symptoms efficacy. Clinically relevant
[Level III-2] sinusitis complex reductions observed in both
Quality not formulation groups. Non-inferiority of the
reported Euphorbium homeopathic complex was
N=739 compositum (nasal demonstrated.
spray)
Tolerability Treatments were equivalent.
Good tolerability in both therapies

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; SR systematic review.

a
b
c

4.14.8 Sinusitis
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with rhinosinusitis/chronic sinusitis
was assessed in two systematic reviews (Bellavite et al, 2011; Cucherat et al, 2000) as summarised in
Table 64 and Table 65. In total, the systematic reviews included three Level II studies (Table 64).
Table 64 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of sinusitis
Study ID
Zabolotnyi et al (2007) Weiser and Clasen Wiesenauer et al
[Level II] (1994) (1989)
[Level II] [Level II]
Systematic
  
[Level I]
review

[Level I]
effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a range of diseases including infections of the
upper airways and ear-nose-throat ailments. Three Level II studies of unspecified quality were
included for the sinusitis indication. Zabolotnyi et al (2007) tested the effect of a homeopathic
complex compared with placebo in patients with maxillary sinusitis. The study found a significant
effect of homeopathy over placebo in the improvement of symptoms. Weiser and Clasen (1994) was
a double-blind, placebo-controlled Level II study that examined the effect of a homeopathic
Euphorbium composition S nasal spray in patients with rhinosinusitis/chronic sinusitis, compared to
placebo. This Level II study also reported a “significantly greater improvement in the homeopathy
group (21.1%) compared to placebo (14.4%)”. The third included Level II study by Wiesenauer et al
(1989) investigated the effect of a low-dilution homeopathic complex in patients with sinusitis. The
study found no effect of homeopathy in a global evaluation and analysis of symptoms. Bellavite et al
(2011) did not formulate a specific conclusion on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment
of sinusitis, but it noted that there was “good positive evidence for Euphorbium compositum in
rhinitis-sinusitis” from the one Level II study (Weiser and Clasen, 1994).
disease in humans”. The systematic review included one Level II study (Weiser and Clasen, 1994) that
focused on chronic sinusitis. Cucherat et al (2000) stated that there was a significant difference in
cumulative scores in Weiser and Clasen (1994) that favoured homeopathy (p=0.016). The quality of
Weiser and Clasen (1994) was not formally assessed; however, a general comment was made in
reference to all of the included studies that “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low
methodological quality of the trials”. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength
of available evidence is insufficient to conclude that homeopathy is clinically effective”.

Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of poor and good quality identified three randomised controlled trials
(quality not reported; total of 420 participants, range: 113-155) that compared homeopathy with
placebo for the treatment of people with sinusitis.
LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with sinusitis.

Table 65 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of sinusitis
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Zabolotnyi et al Patients with Homeopathic Placebo Symptoms Significant improvement over Good positive evidence
(2011) (2007) maxillary sinusitis complex Sinfrontal placebo (p-value not reported) for Euphorbium
[Level I] [Level II] compositum in rhinitis-
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality not sinusitis. Positive
specified evidence from one Level
SR of homeopathy N=113 II study
for multiple
Weiser and Clasen Patients with Euphorbium Placebo Overall Significantly greater
conditions
(1994) chronic sinusitis compositum percentage improvement in homeopathy
[Level II] improvement group (21.1%) compared to
Quality not placebo (14.4%) (p=0.016)
specified
N=155
Wiesenauer et al Patients with Low-dilution (3x-4x) Placebo Global evaluation No effect over placebo
(1989) sinusitis homeopathic and symptoms
[Level II] complex Luffa,
Quality not Cinnabaris, Kalium
specified bichromicum
N=152
Cucherat et al Weiser and Clasen Patients with Euphorbium Placebo Overall Significant difference in favour “It is clear that the
(2000) (1994) chronic sinusitis compositum S nasal percentage of homeopathy (p=0.016) strength of available
[Level I] [Level II] spray improvement evidence is insufficient to
AMSTAR: 10/11 Quality not conclude that
specified homeopathy is clinically
SR of homeopathy N=155 effective.”
for multiple
conditions (Note: this conclusion
conditions and is not
specific to sinusitis)


a
b
c
d

4.14.9 Upper respiratory tract infection

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with an URTI was assessed in three
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 67. In total, the systematic reviews included four Level II
studies and three Level III-2 studies (Table 66).
Table 66 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of upper respiratory tract infection
Study ID
Steinsbekk Steinsbekk de Lange Lecoq Haidvogl et Rabe et al Riley et al
et al et al et al (1985) al (2007) (2004) (2001)
(2007) (2005) (1994) [Level II] [Level III-2] [Level III- [Level III-
[Level II] [Level II] [Level II] 2] 2]
Altunc et
al (2007)
 
[Level I]
Systematic review
Linde and
Melchart

(1998)
[Level I]
Bellavite
et al
(2011)      
[Level
I/III]
homeopathy in various conditions that commonly affect children and adolescents, including URTIs.
Two Level II studies were identified for the treatment of URTI. The authors noted that both
Steinsbekk et al (2005) (Jadad score of 5) and de Lange et al (1994) (Jadad score of 3) were double-
blind Level II studies that examined the effect of homeopathy compared to placebo in children aged
3 to 4 years with URTI. Neither of the studies reported significant differences compared with placebo
for the main outcome measures, which included daily symptom scores. Altunc et al (2007) concluded
that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention
testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for
recommendations in any condition”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) aimed to give an overview of the methods and
results of the available Level II studies of individualised homeopathy for a range of clinical conditions.
It included only de Lange et al (1994) (Jadad score 5) for the URTI indication (Steinsbekk et al (2005)
was published after the time of the systematic review). Linde and Melchart (1998) reported that de
Lange et al (1994) found “trends in favour of homeopathy” but no statistically significant differences
between homeopathy and placebo in the number of patients assessed globally as improved (RR 1.08;
95% CI 0.81, 1.42). Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998) concluded that, across all clinical conditions,
any evidence suggesting that homeopathy has an effect over placebo is “not convincing because of
methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.

effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a range of diseases including common upper
respiratory tract infections. Three Level II (de Lange et al, 1994; Lecoq, 1985; Steinsbekk et al, 2007)
and three Level III-2 studies (Haidvogl et al, 2007; Oberbaum et al, 2001; Rabe et al, 2004) were
included in the review for URTIs; however, the quality of the studies was not formally assessed by the
authors of the systematic review. Steinsbekk et al (2007) tested the effect of individualised
homeopathy compared with parents-selected medicines in children with URTI. The study reported no
significant difference in the prevention of new symptoms and symptom scores between the two
methods of prescription. Similar to the systematic review by Altunc et al (2007), Bellavite et al (2011)
also reported no significant difference between the homeopathy and placebo groups (based on the
mean number of infective episodes) in de Lange et al (1994). However, it was noted that the
percentage of children who did not require antibiotics was higher in the homeopathy group (62%)
compared to placebo (49%). The third included Level II study (Lecoq, 1985) investigated the effect of
a homeopathic complex in patients with URTI compared with placebo. Whilst the statistical
significance of the results was not reported, Bellavite et al (2011) noted that “patients rated more
relief in verum group”.
Amongst the three Level III-2 studies, both Haidvogl et al (2007) and Rabe et al (2004) assessed the
effect of homeopathy compared with various conventional therapies (including anti-inflammatory
drugs and antibiotics) in patients with URTI. In Haidvogl et al (2007), it was reported that
homeopathic treatment was not inferior to standard treatments (e.g. anti-inflammatory drugs and
antibiotics) and was best tolerated. Rabe et al (2004) reported equivalence between homeopathy
and anti-inflammatory agents. The third included Level III-2 study (Riley et al, 2001) tested the effect
of individualised homeopathy compared with conventional therapies in patients with respiratory
tract complaints or ear complaints. Thus, the evidence reviewer notes that the patient population
may not be exclusive to those with an URTI. The significance of the results was not specified, but
healing or major improvement after 14 days of treatment was observed in 82.6% of patients in the
homeopathy group and 68% in the conventional treatment group. The rate of adverse events was
7.8% in the homeopathy group and 22.3% in the conventional treatment group. Overall, Bellavite et
al (2011) concluded that “the evidence for individualised homeopathy for upper respiratory tract
infections is defined as conflicting, but if we exclude from consideration the trials of de Lange and
coworkers (trend to positive effect, but not statistically significant) and of Steinsbekk (where the self-
treatment was investigated), a “good” positive evidence in favour of homeopathy can be suggested
in these conditions”.
Reviewer comments
The evidence reviewer notes that the systematic reviews provided contradicting reports of the results
of de Lange et al (1994). Nevertheless, none of the reviews stated an effect of homeopathy in the
treatment of URTI in this Level II study. It is also of interest to note that Altunc et al (2007) rated de
Lange et al (1994) a Jadad quality score of 3, in comparison to Linde and Melchart (1998), who gave a
Jadad quality score of 5 (good quality).

Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of poor to medium quality identified three randomised controlled trials
(unreported or medium to good quality; total of 486 participants, range: 60-251) that compared
homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of people with upper respiratory tract infections.
homeopathy and placebo in the treatment of children with upper respiratory tract infection. LOC:
Low - moderate.
placebo for the treatment of people with upper respiratory tract infection.
One systematic review of poor quality identified one medium-sized randomised controlled trial
(quality not reported; 208 participants) and three prospectively designed, non-randomised
controlled studies (quality not reported; total of 2498 participants, range: 456-1557) that compared
homeopathy with other therapies (including anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics) for the
treatment of people with upper respiratory tract infections.
These studies are of insufficient quality to warrant further consideration of their findings. LOC: Low.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with upper respiratory
tract infection.

Table 67 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infection
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as Systematic review
Level of Level of population reported in the interpretation
a a
b c review
Quality Quality
Sample size
Altunc et al Steinsbekk et al, Children with Calcarea carbonica, Pulsatilla, Placebo Total daily No significant “The evidence from
(2007) (2005) URTI sulfur in C30 potency; 2 pills 2 symptom score difference rigorous clinical trials of
[Level I] [Level II]  Mean age 3.6 years days per week for 12 weeks. In any type of therapeutic or
d  41% male addition, 1 pill up to once every Adverse events “Mild and preventive intervention
 Concomitant hour if the child had an acute transient” adverse testing homeopathy for
6/10 N=251
treatment: episode of URTI but reduce the events in 4 placebo childhood and
antibiotics, intake if the URTI was mild or and 9 homeopathy adolescence ailments is
SR of painkiller/ patients
homeopathy when there was an improvement not convincing enough for
antipyretic drugs if
for multiple needed recommendations in any
conditions condition”
de Lange et al Children with Individualised homeopathy. Placebo Daily symptom No significant
(1994) recurrent URTI Remedies in various potencies, scores difference
[Level II]  Mean age 4.2 years mainly D6, D30 and D200
d  56% male (remedies not reported) for 1 Number of No significant
Jadad score 3
 Concomitant year. Homeopathic medicines antibiotic difference
N=170 treatment courses
treatment: adequate and follow up prescriptions were
nutrition advice, based on the clinical course
antibiotics, Adenoidectomies No significant
adenoidectomy, and tonsillectomies difference
tonsillectomy if after 1 year follow
needed up
Linde and de Lange et al Patients with Constitutional and acute Placebo Number of patients RR 1.08 (95% CI A meta-analysis found an
Melchart (1994) recurrent upper individual simillimum as assessed globally as 0.81,1.42) overall trend in favour of
(1998) [Level II] respiratory tract necessary (changes possible, improved “Trends in favour of homeopathy. The rate
d
[Level I] Jadad score 5 infection dosage and potency variable) homeopathy” ratio was 1.62 (95% CI
AMSTAR: N=175  Median age: 4.2  Intervention group: 1.17, 2.23) and the odds
8/11 years 48/88 (55%) ratio was 2.62.
 53% male  Control group: 44/87
(51%)

a a
b c review
Quality Quality
Sample size
SR of Difference in daily RR 0.41 (95% CI
homeopathy symptom score 0.02, 0.83) The pooled rate ratio of
for multiple “Trends in favour of the methodologically best
conditions homeopathy” studies was clearly smaller
and not statistically
significant (RR 1.12; 95%
CI 0.87, 1.44)
(Note: Results of meta-

analysis refer to all clinical
conditions and are not
specific to upper
respiratory tract
infections)
Bellavite et Steinsbekk et al Children with Individualised homeopathy Parents-selected Total daily No difference “The evidence for
al (2011) (2007) upper respiratory medicines symptom score between groups individualized
[Level I/III] [Level II] tract infections homeopathy for upper
AMSTAR: Quality not respiratory tract infections
Prevention of new No difference
5/10 specified is defined as conflicting,
episodes between the two
N=208 but if we exclude from
methods of
SR of consideration the trials of
prescription
homeopathy de Lange and coworkers
for multiple de Lange et al Children with Individualised homeopathy Placebo Mean number of No significant inter- (trend to positive effect,
conditions (1994) pharyngitis or infective episodes group differences: but not statistically
[Level II] tonsillitis  Homeopathy group: significant) and of
Quality not 7.9/year Steinsbekk (where the
specified  Placebo group: self-treatment was
8.4/year investigated), a “good”
N=170
Percentage of Significance of positive evidence in favour
children not results not reported of homeopathy can be
suggested in these
requiring  Homeopathy group:
antibiotics 62% conditions”
 Placebo group: 49%

a a
b c review
Quality Quality
Sample size
Lecoq (1985) Patients with Homeopathic complex L52 Placebo Symptom severity Patients rated more
[Level II] upper respiratory score relief in
Quality not tract infections homeopathy group
specified
N=60
Haidvogl et al Patients with Homeopathic strategy Standard Healing or major Homeopathic

(2007) upper respiratory treatments (e.g. improvement after treatment not
[Level III-2] tract infections anti- 14 days of inferior to standard
Quality not inflammatory treatment treatments and best
specified drugs, antibiotics) tolerated
N=1557
Rabe et al (2004) Patients with Homeopathic complex Gripp- Anti- Symptoms Equivalence
[Level III-2] mild upper heel inflammatory between
Quality not respiratory tract agents homeopathy and
specified infections anti-inflammatory
N=485 agents
Riley et al (2001) Patients with Individualised homeopathy Conventional Healing or major Significance of
[Level III-2] respiratory tract medicine improvement after results not reported
Quality not complaints or ear 14 days of  Homeopathy group:
specified complaints treatment 82.6%
 Conventional
N=456
medicine group:
68%
Rate of adverse Significance of

events results not reported
 Homeopathy group:
7.8%
 Conventional
medicine group:
22.3%

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CI, confidence interval; D, decimal; RR, relative risk; SR, systematic review; URTI, upper respiratory tract
infection.
a
b
c
d

4.15 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders

4.15.1 Acne vulgaris
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with acne vulgaris was assessed in
one Level I systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998; AMSTAR score 8/11) as summarised in
Table 68. The authors conducted a broad review of the efficacy of individualised homeopathy across
a range of clinical areas. One Level II study was identified that assessed the efficacy of individualised
homeopathic simillimum compared to placebo for the treatment of acne vulgaris (McDavid, 1994).
McDavid (1994) measured efficacy using a patient-reported global assessment. A higher proportion
of patients treated with placebo reported global improvements (73%) compared to the homeopathy
group (60%), although the trend was not significant. Linde and Melchart (1998) stated that the trial
seemed to be of “acceptable quality” (Jadad score 2; internal validity score 3); however, McDavid
(1994) provided an “insufficient report” of the trial.
Evidence statement
quality; 30 participants) that compared homeopathy (Simillimum) with placebo for the treatment of
people with acne vulgaris. LOC: Very low.
with acne vulgaris.

Table 68 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of acne vulgaris
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and McDavid (1994) Patients with acne Individualised Placebo Number of patients No significant difference between “Insufficient report”
Melchart (1998) [Level II] vulgaris simillimum with improvement treatment groups.
d in global
[Level I] Quality: 2,3 Intervention group: 9/15 (60%); “Trial seems to be of
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=30 assessment Control group: 11/15 (73%). acceptable quality”
(patient-reported) Rate ratio (95% CI): 0.82 (0.49, 1.37)
SR of
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
a
b
c
d

4.15.2 Boils and pyoderma

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with boils and pyoderma was
assessed in one systematic review (Cucherat et al, 2000; AMSTAR score 10/11) as summarised in
Table 69. Cucherat et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) aimed to answer the question of “whether
there is any evidence from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is efficacious for the
treatment of disease in humans”. The review included one Level II study (Mossinger, 1980) that had
investigated the effect of homeopathic Hepar sulfuris calcareum D4 compared to placebo in patients
with boils and pyoderma. The systematic review found no significant difference (p=0.318) in healing
time between the homeopathy and placebo groups. The quality of Mossinger (1980) was not
formally assessed by Cucherat et al (2000); however, a general comment was made about all of the
included studies that “the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality
of the trials”. Overall, the authors concluded that “it is clear that the strength of available evidence is
Evidence statement
One systematic review of good quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial (quality
not reported; 46 participants) that compared homeopathy (Hepar sulfuris calcareum) with placebo
for the treatment of people with boils and pyoderma. LOC: Very low.
people with boils and pyoderma.

Table 69 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of boils and pyoderma
Study ID Included study Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic review interpretation
Level of Level of population the systematic review
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Cucherat (2000) Mossinger (1980) Patients with boils Hepar sulfuris Placebo Healing time No significant difference “It is clear that the strength of available
[Level I] [Level II] and pyoderma calcareum D4 (p=0.318) evidence is insufficient to conclude that
AMSTAR: 10/11 Quality not homeopathy is clinically effective”
specified
d
SR of N=46 (Note: this conclusion refers to all clinical
homeopathy for conditions and is not specific to boils and
multiple pyoderma)
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; D, decimal; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
N equals the number of participants evaluated. The number of participants randomised was not reported.

4.15.3 Bruising
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with bruising was assessed in one
systematic review (Ernst and Pittler, 1998; AMSTAR score 6/10) as summarised in Table 70. Ernst and
Pittler (1998) aimed to review the clinical efficacy of homeopathic Arnica in a range of clinical areas,
and identified two Level III-2 studies that had examined the effect of this treatment in healthy
volunteers with experimentally inflicted mechanical bruising (Campbell, 1976; Savage and Roe,
1978). Both of these trials were very small and rated as low quality by the systematic reviewers. Ernst
and Pittler (1998) reported that in both studies “results numerically favoured Arnica” over placebo
with regards to the extent of bruising and the subjective symptoms outcomes. However, their overall
conclusion across the various clinical conditions they assessed was that “the hypothesis claiming that
homeopathic Arnica is clinically effective beyond a placebo effect is not based on methodologically
sound placebo-controlled trials”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified two prospectively designed, non-randomised
controlled studies (poor quality; 10 and 13 participants) that compared homeopathy (Arnica) with
placebo for the treatment of people with bruising.
LOC: Very low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with bruising.

Table 70 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of bruising
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst and Pittler Savage and Roe Healthy volunteers Arnica 30C, one tablet Placebo Extent of bruising Results numerically “The claim that homeopathic
(1998) (1978) for the treatment before being bruised and favoured Arnica Arnica is efficacious beyond a
[Level I/III] [Level III-2] of experimentally 2 after, on the same day, placebo effect is not
d
inflicted mechanical and 2 more tablets on Subjective Results numerically supported by rigorous clinical
bruising the next day symptoms favoured Arnica trials”
N=10
SR of
Campbell (1976) Healthy volunteers Arnica 10M, one tablet Placebo Extent of bruising Results numerically “The hypothesis claiming
homeopathy for
[Level III-2] for the treatment before being bruised and favoured Arnica that homeopathic Arnica is
multiple d
Jadad score 1 of experimentally 2 after, on the same day, clinically effective beyond a
conditions Subjective Results numerically
N=13 inflicted mechanical and 2 more tablets on placebo effect is not based
bruising the next day symptoms favoured Arnica
on methodologically sound
placebo-controlled trials”.

is not specific to bruising)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; M, the number 1000 in Latin; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d

4.15.4 Second and third degree burns

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with second and third degree burns
was assessed in one systematic review (Cucherat et al, 2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) as summarised
in Table 71. Cucherat et al (2000) (AMSTAR score 10/11) aimed to answer the question of “whether
there is any evidence from randomised controlled trials that homeopathy is efficacious for the
treatment of disease in humans”. The review did not identify any Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2
studies that compared homeopathy to placebo; however it included one Level II study (Lievre, 1992)
that investigated the effect of homeopathic Calendula compared with Vaseline in patients with
second and third degree burns. The quality of Lievre (1992) was not formally assessed by Cucherat et
al (2000); however, a general comment was made about all of the included studies that “the strength
of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials”. The authors of the
trial reported no significant difference between homeopathic Calendula and Vaseline in the
composite criteria of treatment success outcome (p=0.147). Overall, the authors concluded that “it is
effective”.
Evidence statement
second and third degree burns.
reported; 103 participants) that compared homeopathy (Calendula) with Vaseline for the treatment
of people with second and third degree burns. LOC: Very low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to Vaseline for the treatment of people
with second and third degree burns.

Table 71 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of second and third degree burns
Study ID Included study Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported Systematic review
Level of Level of in the systematic interpretation
a a
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Cucherat et al Lievre (1992) Patients with second Calendula Vaseline Composite criteria of No significant “It is clear that the strength of
(2000) [Level II] and third degree treatment success difference (p=0.147) available evidence is insufficient to
[Level I] Quality not burns conclude that homeopathy is
AMSTAR: 10/11 specified clinically effective”
N=103
homeopathy for clinical conditions and is not specific
multiple to second and third degree burns)
conditions
a
b
c

4.15.5 Eczema
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with eczema was assessed in two
Level I/III systematic reviews as summarised in Table 73. Both systematic reviews included one Level
II study (Siebenwirth et al, 2009) and two Level III-2 studies (Keil et al, 2008; Witt et al, 2009) (Table
72). Neither of the systematic reviews performed a meta-analysis of the data.
Table 72 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of eczema
Study ID
Siebenwirth et al (2009) Witt et al (2009) Keil et al (2008)
[Level II] [Level III-2] [Level III-2]
Ernst (2012)
  
Systematic
[Level I/III]
review
Simonart et al (2011)
  
[Level I/III]
Ernst (2012) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review of evidence from controlled clinical
trials of any type of homeopathic treatment for any type of eczema. The one Level II study that was
identified (Siebenwirth et al, 2009; Jadad score 3) examined the effect of individualised homeopathic
treatment in patients with atopic eczema. Ernst (2012) reported that it found a non-significant trend
that favoured placebo over homeopathy. Two Level III-2 studies each with a Jadad score of 1 were
also included. Both Witt et al (2009) and Keil et al (2008) examined the effect of treatment by
homeopaths in children with eczema compared with conventional treatment (including
corticosteroids and antihistamines). The study found no significant difference between homeopathy
and conventional treatment in either symptom scores or quality of life in both trials. Ernst (2012)
concluded that “the available data do not demonstrate homeopathic remedies to be efficacious as a
treatment of eczema”.
Simonart et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a systematic review of evidence for the
efficacy of homeopathic treatments in dermatology. A number of different dermatological conditions
were examined, including atopic dermatitis (a form of eczema), which included the same three
studies as Ernst (2012). Simonart et al (2011) reported no significant difference between
homeopathy and the comparator (which was placebo in one of the trials and unspecified
‘conventional therapy’ in the other two trials) for any of the outcomes examined in Siebenwirth et al
(2009), Witt et al (2009) or Keil et al (2008). The only exception was in Keil et al (2008), where a
significant difference (p<0.001) was reported for the extent of improvement of signs/symptoms of
eczema as assessed by the physician. However, it is unclear if this difference favoured homeopathy
or the other therapy (the other therapy was not specified in Simonart et al, 2011). Simonart et al
(2011) also noted some of the limitations of the included trials. Siebenwirth et al (2009) had a high
percentage of ineligible patients and a high proportion of dropouts. The patient population in both
Keil et al (2008) and Witt et al (2009) were recruited at the homeopathic or conventional doctor’s
practices, which presents a bias as the patients had already made their own choice of preferred
therapeutic approach. Further, the use of conventional therapies was allowed in the homeopathic
group in Witt et al (2009), which would make it difficult to ascertain any effect of homeopathic
treatment. Simonart et al (2011) concluded that “the hypothesis that any dermatological condition

responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control

interventions is not supported by evidence”.
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial
(medium quality; 24 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
people with eczema. LOC: Very low.
the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of people with eczema.
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified two prospectively designed, non-randomised
controlled studies (poor quality; 118 and 135 participants) that compared homeopathy with other
therapies (corticosteroids, antihistamines and other unspecified therapies) for the treatment of
people with eczema.
These studies are of insufficient quality and power to warrant further consideration of their findings.
LOC: Very low.
homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of people with eczema.

Table 73 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of eczema
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst (2012) Siebenwirth et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Not reported A non-significant trend “The available data do not
[Level I/III] (2009) atopic eczema homeopathic favoured placebo over demonstrate homeopathic
AMSTAR: 6/10 [Level II] treatment for homeopathy remedies to be efficacious as a
d
Jadad score 3 32 weeks treatment of eczema”
SR of N=24
homeopathy for
Witt et al (2009) Children with Treatment by Conventional Symptom scores No significant difference
eczema
[Level III-2] atopic eczema homeopaths treatment
d (not specified)
Jadad score 1
N=135 Quality of life No significant difference
Keil et al (2008) Children with Treatment by Conventional Symptom scores No significant difference
[Level III-2] eczema homeopaths treatment
d (not specified)
Jadad score 1
Quality of life No significant difference
N=118
Simonart et al Siebenwirth et al Young adults Individually Placebo MP score No significant difference “The hypothesis that any
(2011) (2009) aged 18-35 selected dermatological condition
[Level I/III] [Level II] years with homeopathic responds convincingly better to
atopic remedies for 32 Quality of life No significant difference homeopathic treatment than to
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not
specified dermatitis weeks placebo or other control
SR of N=24 interventions is not supported
Coping and global No significant difference
homeopathy for by evidence”.
assessments of
multiple treatment success
conditions (Note: this conclusion refers to
Witt et al (2009) Children aged Individually Conventional SCORAD No significant difference all clinical conditions and is not
[Level III-2] 1-14 years with selected therapy specific to eczema)
Quality not atopic homeopathic
specified dermatitis remedies for 12
N=135 months

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Keil et al (2008) Children less Individually Conventional Extent of improvement No significant difference
[Level III-2] than 17 years selected therapy of signs/symptoms of
Quality not of age with homeopathic eczema as assessed by
specified atopic remedies for 12 the patients or their
N=118 dermatitis months parents on a 0-10
numerical scale
Extent of improvement Significant difference

of signs/symptoms of (p<0.001)
eczema as assessed by  Intervention group: 1.8-4.5
the physician on a 0-10  Comparator group: 2.6-3.6
numerical scale
Quality of life No significant difference

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; MP score, Costa and Saurat’s multiparameter atopic dermatitis score; SCORAD, Scoring Atopic Dermatitis; SR, systematic
review.
a
b
c
d

4.15.6 Seborrhoeic dermatitis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with seborrhoeic dermatitis was
assessed in one systematic review (Simonart et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 8/10) as summarised in Table
74. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments
in dermatological conditions. For the seborrhoeic dermatitis indication, one relevant Level II study of
unspecified quality was identified. Smith et al (2002) investigated the effect of a homeopathic
combination product in adults with seborrhoeic dermatitis. The study reported a significant
difference that favoured homeopathy in the percentage improvement in Seborrhoea Area and
Severity Index (SASI) compared with placebo (p=0.03). However, Simonart et al (2011) noted that
“this trial methodology reveals some serious shortcomings. A high withdrawal rate and the non-
inclusion of data from the withdrawal group are factors that combine to suggest that the results may
not be as robust as first indicated. The brief discussion section of the report does not include any
mention of possible errors or weaknesses”. The systematic review concluded that “the hypothesis
that any dermatological condition responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to
placebo or other control interventions is not supported by evidence”.
Evidence statement
(quality not reported; 41 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
people with seborrhoeic dermatitis. LOC: Very low.
people with seborrhoeic dermatitis.

Table 74 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of seborrhoeic dermatitis
Study Included studies Patient Intervention Comparator Outcomes Results Systematic review
a
Level of evidence Level of population interpretation
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Simonart et al, 2011 Smith et al, 2002 Patients aged 20-77 Homeopathic mineral Placebo SASI Significant difference in “The hypothesis that any
[Level I] [Level II] years with typical therapy (potassium improvement favour of homeopathy dermatological condition
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not seborrhoeic bromide 1X, sodium (p=0.03) responds convincingly
specified dermatitis or bromide 2X, nickel  SASI improvement 3842% in better to homeopathic
SR of homeopathy N=41 dandruff sulphate 3X, sodium homeopathy group treatment than to placebo
chloride 6X) for 10 and -1066% in placebo group or other control
for multiple
conditions weeks interventions is not
supported by evidence”.

specific to seborrhoeic
dermatitis)
Abbreviations: NR, not reported; SASI; Seborrhoea Area and Severity Index; SR, systematic review.
a
b
Study quality as assessed by the evidence reviewer according to the AMSTAR criteria.
c

4.15.7 Ulcers
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with ulcers was assessed in two
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 76. In total, the systematic reviews included one Level II
study and one Level III-2 study (Table 75). Neither of the systematic reviews specified the quality of
the included studies.
Table 75 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of ulcers
Study ID
Mousavi et al (2009) Garrett et al (1997)
[Level II] [Level III-2]

Systematic
[Level I]
review
Simonart et al (2011)
 
[Level I/III]
effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a range of diseases including infections of the
upper airways and ear-nose-throat ailments. One Level II study was identified for aphthous ulcers.
Mousavi et al (2009) was a single-(patient) blind Level II study that investigated the efficacy of
individualised homeopathy in the treatment of patients with minor recurrent aphthous ulceration for
6 days. The study found that pain intensity and ulcer size were significantly lower in the homeopathy
group compared with placebo at day 4 and day 6 of treatment (p<0.05). Bellavite et al (2011) did not
formulate an overall conclusion on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of ulcers.
Simonart et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of
homeopathic treatments in dermatology. For the ulcers indication, two relevant Level II studies of
unspecified quality were identified. Consistent with Bellavite et al (2011), Simonart et al (2011) also
reported a significant effect of homeopathy in the Level II study by Mousavi et al (2009). However,
Simonart et al (2011) noted that “the open-label design is the major limitation of this study”, which
may have subjected the results to bias. Garrett et al (1997) was a small, Level III-2 study that
investigated the effect of homeopathy in patients with leg ulcers. Of importance, each patient had
conventional local or systemic therapy continued during the trial period. The study reported no
significant difference in improvement in ulcer size between the homeopathy and placebo groups.
Simonart et al (2011) noted that poor randomisation, small sample size, inadequate statistical
methodology and the absence of blinding were the major limitations of this study. Overall, Simonart
et al (2011) concluded that “the hypothesis that any dermatological condition responds convincingly
better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions is not supported by
evidence”.

Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of poor and medium quality identified one small randomised controlled trial
(quality not reported; 100 participants) and one very small prospectively designed, non-randomised
controlled study (quality not reported; 23 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for
the treatment of people with ulcers.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with ulcers.

Table 76 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of ulcers
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Bellavite et al Mousavi et al Patients with Individualised Placebo Improvement in Significant improvement in the No final conclusions were
(2011) (2009) minor aphthous homeopathy ulcer size and homeopathy group at day 4 drawn
[Level I] [Level II] ulcer mean pain score and day 6 of treatment
AMSTAR: 5/10 Quality not (p<0.05)
specified
SR of N=100
homeopathy for
multiple
conditions
Simonart et al Mousavi et al Patients aged Individually Placebo Improvement in Significant difference in favour “The hypothesis that any
(2011) (2009) 18-65 years selected ulcer size of homeopathy (p<0.05) dermatological condition
[Level I/III] [Level II] with 1-5 homeopathic  Proportion of responders: 96% in responds convincingly better to
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not aphthous ulcers remedies (two homeopathy group and 72% in homeopathic treatment than
specified of <24 hours doses) for 6 days placebo to placebo or other control
SR of N=100 duration Mean pain score Significant difference in favour interventions is not supported
homeopathy for of homeopathy (lower pain by evidence”
multiple intensity) (p<0.05)
conditions (Note: this conclusion refers to
Garrett et al Patients aged Sulphur, silica and Placebo Improvement in No significant difference all clinical conditions and is not
(1997) 53-87 years carbo-vegetabilis 6 ulcer size specific to ulcers)
[Level III-2] with leg ulcers cH for a mean
Quality not duration of 4.2
specified weeks
N=23
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; cH, Hahnemannian centesimal scale; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c

4.15.8 Uraemic pruritis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with uraemic pruritis was assessed in
one systematic review (Simonart et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 8/10) as summarised in Table 77. This
systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments in
dermatology. For the uraemic pruritis indication, one relevant Level II study of unspecified quality
was identified. Cavalcanti et al (2003) investigated the effect of individually selected homeopathic
remedies in patients with uraemic pruritis, compared with placebo. The study reported no significant
difference between the homeopathy and placebo groups with reference to the percentage of
maximum pruritis score before and during treatment, the percentage of pruritis reduction as
evaluated by the homeopathic physician, dermatologist or patient, or the percentage of responders
(i.e. those with a reduction in pruritis score of greater than 50%) at the end of the follow-up period
(60 days). There was a significant difference, however, in the percentage of responders at 30 days
that favoured homeopathy (p=0.038). Simonart et al (2011) noted that randomisation resulted in
significant differences between the two groups; the placebo patients were significantly older and had
a higher dialysis dose than patients in the homeopathy group. Whether the difference in rate of
responders is a truly significant result thus remains uncertain. The systematic review concluded that
“the hypothesis that any dermatological condition responds convincingly better to homeopathic
treatment than to placebo or other control interventions is not supported by evidence”.
Evidence statement
(quality not reported; 28 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
people with uraemic pruritis. LOC: Very low.
people with uraemic pruritis.

Table 77 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of uraemic pruritis
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Simonart et al Cavalcanti et al Patients with Individually Placebo Percentage of No significant difference “The hypothesis that any
(2011) (2003) uraemic pruritis selected maximum pruritis score dermatological condition
[Level I] [Level II] homeopathic before and during responds convincingly
AMSTAR: 8/10 Quality not remedies for 2 treatment better to homeopathic
specified months treatment than to
Percentage of Significant difference in favour of placebo or other control
SR of homeopathy N=28 responders (>50% homeopathy (p=0.038)
for multiple interventions is not
reduction in pruritis  0% responders in placebo group, 45% supported by evidence”
conditions score) responders in homeopathy group after
30 days
No significant difference (p=0.370) refers to all clinical
 7/11 responders in homeopathy group conditions and is not
 3/9 responders in placebo group specific to uraemic
Pruritus score No significant difference (p=0.260) pruritis)
 38 ± 33 in homeopathy group
 57 ± 39 in placebo group
Percentage of pruritis No significant difference

reduction as evaluated
by the homeopathic
physician,
dermatologist and
patients
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; SR, systematic review; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c

4.15.9 Warts
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with warts was assessed in four
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 79. In total, the systematic reviews included two Level II
studies (Kainz et al, 1996; Labrecque et al, 1992) and one Level III-2 study (Villeda et al, 2001) (Table
78). One systematic review (Linde and Melchart, 1998) performed a meta-analysis of the data;
however it included a variety of clinical conditions and was not specific to warts.
Table 78 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of warts
Study ID
Kainz et al (1996) Labrecque et al Villeda et al (2001)
[Level II] (1992) [Level III-2]
[Level II]
Loo and Tang (2009)
 
[Level I]
Systematic review
Altunc et al (2007)

[Level I]


[Level I]
Simonart and de Maertelaer

(2012)   
[Level I/III]
Loo and Tang (2009) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review of the effects of
treatments for non-genital warts. For homeopathy as a treatment, it included the results of two poor
quality Level II studies (Kainz et al, 1996; Labrecque et al, 1992). In both studies, there was no
significant difference in the proportion of participants with wart clearance between the homeopathy
and placebo groups. In Labrecque et al (1992), there was also no significant difference in adverse
effects experienced by participants in the homeopathy and placebo groups. As a result, Loo and Tang
(2009) concluded that “we don’t know whether homeopathy increases cure rates compared with
placebo, as few high-quality studies have been found” and “we don’t know whether homeopathy is
more effective at increasing the proportion of people with wart clearance after 8-18 weeks”.
homeopathy in various conditions that commonly affect children and adolescents, including warts.
One Level II study given a Jadad score of 4 (Kainz et al, 1996) was identified for the treatment of
warts. The systematic review noted that this Level II study “failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of
individualised homeopathic treatment for reducing the size of warts”. It concluded that “the
evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing
homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations
in any condition”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) performed a systematic review of the efficacy of
individualised homeopathy across a range of clinical conditions. They identified the same Level II
study by Kainz et al (1996) (given a Jadad score of 4) that has been discussed above. Linde and
Melchart (1998) reported that 27% of participants treated with homeopathy achieved at least a 50%
reduction in the size of warts, compared to 21% of patients who received placebo. The
corresponding rate ratio was 1.29 (95% CI 0.55, 3.00), indicating no significant difference between
the treatment groups. The authors of the systematic review were critical of the fact that the trial only
had one outcome measure and that some details were lacking in the report. They also stated that the
study suffered from a lack of statistical power.
Simonart and De Maertelaer (2012) (AMSTAR score 6/10) is a systematic review that assessed the
evidence for the efficacy of systemic treatments for cutaneous warts. It included two Level II studies
(Kainz et al, 1996; Labrecque et al, 1992) and also one Level III-2 study (Villeda et al, 2001). Whilst the
quality of the individual studies was not specified, comment was made that “many of the trials
reviewed concerning systemic treatment for cutaneous warts were of limited quality”. In all three
included studies, there was no significant difference in the complete clearance of warts between the
homeopathy and placebo groups. In Labrecque et al (1992), there was also no significant difference
in adverse effects experienced by participants in the homeopathy and placebo groups. Simonart and
De Maertelaer (2012) concluded that “evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy is lacking”.
Reviewer comments
The evidence reviewer notes that one of the Level II studies (Kainz et al, 1996) was given a Jadad
score of 4 by Linde and Melchart (1998) and Altunc et al (2007); however, Loo and Tang (2009) stated
that the trial was of “low quality”. There is no apparent reason for the discrepancy between the
reviews.
Evidence statement
Four systematic reviews of medium quality identified two randomised controlled trials (poor to
medium quality; 77 and 174 participants) and one very small prospectively designed, non-
randomised controlled study (quality not reported; 26 participants) that compared homeopathy with
placebo for the treatment of people with warts. LOC: Very low - low.
placebo for the treatment of people with warts.

Table 79 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of warts
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Loo and Tang Kainz et al (1996) Not specified. Oral homeopathy Placebo Proportion of No significant difference “We don’t know
(2009) [Level II] Assumed to be (individually selected people with  RR 4.85 (95% CI 0.60, 39.35) whether homeopathy
[Level I] Low quality patients with regimen) wart clearance  5/34 (15%) patients in increases cure rates
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=67 non-genital warts homeopathy group, and 1/33 compared with
(3%) patients in placebo group placebo, as few high-
had wart clearance at 8 weeks quality studies have
SR of CAM for
non-genital Labrecque et al Not specified. Oral homeopathy for 6 weeks Placebo Proportion of No significant difference been found.”
warts (1992) Assumed to be (Thuya 30cH plus antimony people with  ARR 4% (95% CI -8, 17)
[Level II] patients with crudum 7cH plus nitricium wart clearance  16/80 (20%) patients in
Low quality non-genital warts acidum 7cH) homeopathy group, and 20/82
(24%) patients in placebo group
N=174 had wart clearance at 18 weeks
Adverse effects No significant difference

 RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.10, 2.72)
 2/86 (2%) patients in
homeopathy group and 4/88
(5%) patients in placebo group
experienced adverse effects
 Adverse effects included
stomach ache, loose stools,
fatigue and acne
Altunc et al Kainz et al (1996) Patients with Individualised homeopathy, Placebo Number of No significant difference “A single RCT was
(2007) [Level II] warts. Gender material potencies, 8 weeks responders identified for treating
d not reported.  10 different remedies were (50% reduction warts. It failed to
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=60  Intervention preselected: sulfur 12X potency, in warts area) demonstrate the
group: mean age Calcium carbonicum 30X effectiveness of
8 years potency, Natrium muriaticum Adverse events Main adverse events include individualised
SR of  Control group: mean 30X potency, sepia 12X potency, thrombosis of a capillary
homeopathy homeopathic
age 9 years Causticum 12X potency, hemangioma (1 placebo),
for multiple Staphysagria 12X potency, Thuja
treatment for reducing
exacerbation (1 in both the size of warts”.
conditions 12X potency. Globuli 12X potency
were administered once a day;
globuli 30X potency every other
groups)

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
day
Linde and Kainz et al (1996) Children (aged 6- Best-fitting simillimum out of Placebo Number of No significant difference “Only one outcome
Melchart (1998) [Level II] 12 years) with predefined set of 10 responders  Intervention group: 9/33 (27%); measure; lack of
e common warts constitutional remedies in (50% reduction comparator group: 7/34 (21%) statistical power”.
[Level I] Quality: 4,4
AMSTAR: 8/11 on the hands D12 (once a day) and D30 in warts area) 
N=77
(once every other day)  Rate ratio (95% CI): 1.29 (0.55,
“Simple,
3.00)
SR of straightforward trial
homeopathy with some details
for multiple lacking in the report”.
conditions
Simonart and Kainz et al (1996) Children aged 6- Homeopathic therapy Placebo Complete No significant difference “Evidence for the
De Maertelaer [Level II] 12 years. (individually selected clearance of  Complete clearance of warts in efficacy of
(2012) Quality not Ordinary warts on regimen) for 6 weeks warts 9/30 (30%) patients in homeopathy is lacking”
[Level I/III] specified the back of the intervention group and 7/30
hands only (23%) patients in control group
AMSTAR: 6/10 N=67
Labrecque et al Children and Homeopathic therapy (Thuya Placebo Complete No significant difference
SR of CAM for
(1992) adults. Ordinary 30CH plus antimonium clearance of  Complete clearance of warts in
warts
[Level II] warts on the feet crudum 7cH plus nitricium warts 4/74 (5%) patients in intervention
Quality not only acidum 7cH) for 6 weeks group and 4/71 (5%) patients in
control group
specified
N=174 Adverse events No significant difference
Villeda et al (2001) Children and Homeopathic therapy (Thuya Placebo Complete No significant difference
[Level III-2] adults. Ordinary 6cH) for 1 month clearance of  Complete clearance of warts in
Quality not warts anywhere warts 1/12 (8%) patients in intervention
specified group and 0/14 (0%) patients in
control group)
N=26
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; ARR, absolute risk reduction; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; cH, Hahnemannian centesimal scale; CI,
confidence interval; D, decimal; RCT, randomised controlled trial; RR, relative risk; SR, systematic review.

a
b
c
d

4.16 Sleep disorders and fatigue

4.16.1 Chronic fatigue syndrome
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with CFS was assessed in six
systematic reviews as summarised in Table 80 and Table 81. In total, the systematic reviews included
three Level II studies (Awdry, 1996; Saul, 2005; Weatherley-Jones, 2004). The quality of the Level I
evidence was variable and ranged from an AMSTAR score of 5/10 to 9/10. One of the systematic
reviews (Linde and Melchart, 1998) performed a meta-analysis; however it was not specific to
homeopathy in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Table 80 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of chronic fatigue syndrome
Study ID
Saul (2005) Weatherley-Jones Awdry (1996)
[Level II] (2004) [Level II]
[Level II]
Alraek et al (2011)
 
[Level I]
Davidson et al (2011)
  
[Level I]
Systematic review
Reid et al (2011)

[Level I]
Porter et al (2010)
 
[Level I]
Turnbull et al (2007)
 
[Level I]

[Level I]
Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a systematic review that examined the
effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of a range of clinical conditions, including three Level
II studies (Awdry, 1996; Saul, 2005; Weatherley-Jones, 2004) that examined homeopathy for the
treatment of CFS. The largest trial included 103 patients (Weatherley-Jones, 2004) and was
considered to be of good quality by the authors of the systematic review. Davidson et al (2011)
reported that the Level II study produced “mixed results, but the most rigorous measure supports
homeopathy” and stated there was “weak, but equivocal evidence favouring homeopathy”. The
systematic review also presented results from a “fair quality” Level II study by Awdry (1996), stating
that while homeopathy seemed to be effective on many measures, no statistical analyses were
carried out and “some of the published numbers do not add up in subscales”. Therefore, Davidson et
al (2011) were “guarded in stating advantages for homeopathy” based on Awdry (1996).
The smallest Level II study (Saul, 2005) included 30 CFS patients and was judged to be the
methodologically weakest Level II study by Davidson et al (2011). The study reported no benefit for
individualised homeopathy compared to placebo. Davidson et al (2011) provided a broad conclusion
across all trials that assessed homeopathy for functional somatic syndromes that “all except one of

the six functional somatic syndrome studies yielded positive evidence that homeopathy was superior
to placebo, and that was the smallest and methodologically weakest”.
Alraek et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 7/10) examined the effectiveness of a variety of CAM in relieving
symptoms of CFS. The systematic review included two Level II studies (Weatherley-Jones, 2004;
Awdry, 1996) that examined the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with placebo for six months
and one year, respectively. As reported above, Awdry (1996) did not conduct statistical analyses,
although Alraek et al (2011) reported that Awdry (1996) found “beneficial effects of homeopathy on
symptom improvement”. Weatherley-Jones (2004) found that homeopathy significantly improved
function and fatigue compared to placebo. Across all eight measures of methodological quality
assessed by Alraek et al (2011), Weatherley-Jones (2004) had a low risk of bias, whereas Awdry
(1996) had a mixture of low, unclear and high risk of bias. Overall, Alraek et al (2011) concluded that
homeopathy had “insufficient evidence of symptom improvement in CFS” compared with placebo.
Porter et al (2010) (AMSTAR score 9/10) included the same two Level II studies as Alraek et al (2011)
in their review of CAM for the treatment of several functional somatic syndromes, including CFS. No
additional results were reported, although Porter et al (2010) assessed the quality of the studies
using Jadad scores. Awdry (1996) and Weatherley-Jones (2004) received Jadad scores of 2 and 5,
respectively. Porter et al (2010) concluded that “given the limited number of studies and mixed
outcomes, no conclusions can be drawn on homeopathy for chronic fatigue syndrome”.
Turnbull et al (2007) (AMSTAR score 5/10) also conducted a systematic review of CAM for CFS,
including the same results from the same two Level II studies as Alraek et al (2011) and Porter et al
(2010) (Awdry, 1996; Weatherley-Jones, 2004). Overall, Turnbull et al (2007) concluded that “the
evidence found on the effects of complementary therapies for CFS is inadequate in terms of quantity
and/or quality”.
Similarly, the conclusion from the systematic review of CAM and CFS by Reid et al (2011) was that
“there is insufficient evidence to recommend homeopathy as a treatment in CFS”, based on the Level
II study of “moderate quality” by Weatherley-Jones (2004).
Finally, the much earlier systematic review by Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) of
homeopathy and multiple clinical conditions only included the older Level II study by Awdry (1996;
Jadad score 3). Linde and Melchart reported results from Awdry (1996) that favoured homeopathy;
however, the systematic review authors stated that although the trial seemed to be rigorous, the
reporting of results was “partly detailed but confusing”. Overall, Linde and Melchart (1998)
concluded that, across all clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that homeopathy has an effect
over placebo is “not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies”.
Evidence statement
Six systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified three randomised controlled trials (poor to
the treatment of people with chronic fatigue syndrome.
LOC: Low.

homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with chronic fatigue
syndrome.

Table 81 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Alraek et al Weatherley-Jones Patients over 18 years Homeopathy for Placebo MFI No significant difference “Compared to placebo,
(2011) (2004) of age diagnosed with 6 months except general fatigue homeopathy had insufficient
[Level I] [Level II] CFS according to the (p=0.04) evidence of symptom
AMSTAR: 7/10 Quality not Oxford criteria improvement in CFS”
FIS No significant difference
specified
SR of CAM for N=93 FLP Significant difference
CFS (p=0.04)
Awdry (1996) Patients less than 65 Homeopathy for Placebo Daily graphs No significant differences
[Level II] years of age diagnosed 1 year completed by each reported (no between-
Quality not with CFS according to patient group analysis)
specified the Oxford criteria
Symptom score No significant differences
N=61 (no between-group
analysis)
Davidson et al Saul (2005) Patients with CFS Individualised Placebo CFS-Q No benefit for homeopathy “All except one of the six
(2011) [Level II] homeopathy functional somatic
F-VAS No benefit for homeopathy syndromes studies yielded
[Level I] Poor quality
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=30 positive evidence that
homeopathy was superior to
Weatherley-Jones Patients with CFS Individualised Placebo MFI scales (general Mixed results, but the most placebo and that one was
SR of
(2004) homeopathy fatigue, physical rigorous measure supports one of the smallest and
homeopathy
[Level II] fatigue, mental homeopathy – no further methodologically weakest”
for multiple
Good quality fatigue, reduced information provided
conditions
N=103 activity, reduced (Note: this conclusion refers
motivation) to all clinical conditions and
Effect size (95% CI) ES (95% CI): 0.40 (-0.03 to is not specific to CFS)
and NNT based on 0.83)
MFI - fatigue NNT: 6.14

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Effect size (95% CI) ES (95% CI): -0.08 (-0.34 to
based on MFI – 0.50)
reduced motivation
Awdry (1996) Patients with CFS Individualised Placebo Global response Homeopathy group 43%;
[Level II] homeopathy placebo group 4%.
Fair quality “Advantages seem evident
N=64 on many measures, but
statistical analysis not
carried out”
NNT 2.49
Reid et al Weatherley-Jones Adults with CFS (Oxford Individualised Placebo 5 MFI scales: general No significant difference “There is insufficient
(2011) (2004) criteria) homeopath fatigue, physical except general fatigue evidence to recommend
[Level I] [Level II] fatigue, mental (favours homeopathy; homeopathy as a treatment
AMSTAR: 5/10 Moderate quality fatigue, reduced p=0.04) in CFS”
N=103 activity, reduced  Homeopathy group: mean
SR of CAM for motivation change 2.7
 Placebo group: mean change
CFS 1.35
Porter et al Weatherley-Jones Patients with CFS Homeopathy – Placebo Physical outcomes Positive results for “Given the limited number of
(2010) (2004) details not homeopathy studies and mixed outcomes,
[Level I] [Level II] specified no conclusions can be drawn
d on homeopathy for CFS”
N=103
SR of CAM for
Awdry (1996) Patients with CFS Homeopathy – Placebo Overall beneficial Null result for homeopathy
multiple
[Level II[ details not effect or reduction in
conditions d
Jadad score 2 specified symptoms
N=64 Quality of life Null result for homeopathy

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Turnbull et al Weatherley-Jones Patients aged over 18 Homeopathic Placebo MFI Significant difference for “The evidence found on the
(2007) (2004) years who were consultations the general fatigue scale of effects of complementary
[Level I] [Level II] diagnosed with CFS over a 6 month the MFI (p=0.04) therapies for CFS is
AMSTAR: 5/10 SIGN EL 1++
e using the Oxford period with  26% of patients in treatment inadequate in terms of
N=103 criteria consultations at group showed clinical quantity and/or quality.”
monthly periods improvements on all
SR of CAM for subscales of the MFI
CFS when
compared to 9% of the
individualised
placebo group
prescriptions
were made FIS No significant difference
FLP Significant difference in

score changes for physical
dimension scale (p=0.04)
Awdry (1996) Patients aged less than Variety of Placebo Daily graphs “Cumulative results
[Level II] 65 years who were homeopathic completed by each presented graphically for a
e diagnosed with CFS remedies “as patient small part of the scale - not
SIGN EL 1
N=64 using the Oxford indicated”, clear on how to extract
criteria and had the assessed by data or how meaningful
illness for less than 10 homeopath this is”
years duration
End of trial self- Homeopathy group: 6
assessment charts recovered, 4 greatly
completed by each improved, 3 improved, 6
patient were slightly better and 11
largely unchanged.
Placebo group: 0
recovered, 1 greatly
improved, 0 improved, 4
were slightly better and 26
largely unchanged

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Linde and Awdry (1996) Patients with postviral Individual Placebo Number of patients Intervention group: 13/32 “Apparently rigorous trial,
Melchart [Level II] fatigue syndrome simillimum assessed globally as (41%); Control group: 1/32 partly detailed but confusing
(1998) f (mean age 40 years; improved (3%). reporting”.
Quality:3,4
[Level I] N=64 70% female)  Rate ratio (95% CI): 13.0
AMSTAR: 8/11 (1.81, 93.6) “Homeopathy superior
regarding sleep, fatigue,
SR of disability, mood”.
homeopathy
for multiple
conditions
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; CFS, chronic fatigue syndrome; CFS-Q, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Questionnaire; CI, confidence interval; EL, evidence level; F-VAS, Fatigue Visual Analogue Scale; FIS, Fatigue Impact Scale; FLP, Functional Limitations Profile; MFI, Multidimensional Fatigue
Inventory; NNT, number needed to treat; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e ++
SIGN evidence level assesses the quality of the evidence based on study design and risk of bias. The range of possible scores is 4 (low) to 1 (high). Studies with a level of evidence ‘–‘ should
not be used as a basis for making a recommendation due to high risk of bias.
f
Quality was assessed using two measures (i) Jadad score, out of 5; (ii) internal validity score, out of 6.

4.16.2 Sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances was
assessed in five systematic reviews (Cooper and Relton, 2010; Davidson et al, 2011; Ernst, 2011;
Linde and Melchart, 1998; Sarris and Byrne, 2011). The review of complementary medicines and
insomnia by Sarris and Byrne (2011) (AMSTAR score 3/5) did not identify any relevant studies. The
remaining systematic reviews are summarised in Table 82 and Table 83. In total, the systematic
reviews included eight Level II studies.
Table 82 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of sleep or circadian rhythm
disturbances
Systematic reviews
Ernst (2011) Davidson et al Cooper and Linde and
[Level I] (2011) Relton (2010) Melchart
[Level I] [Level I] (1998)
[Level I]
Kumar (2010)

[Level II]
Naude et al (2010)
 
[Level II]
Kolia-Adam et al
(2008)   
[Level II]
La Pine et al (2006)
 
Study IDs
[Level II]
Cialdella et al
(2001)  
[Level II]
Lipman et al (1999)

[Level II]
Wolf (1992)
 
[Level II]
Carlini et al (1987)
  
[Level II]
The systematic review by Davidson et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) examined the effectiveness of
homeopathy in treating a number of clinical conditions, including five Level II studies (Kolia-Adam,
2008; Kumar, 2010; La Pine et al, 2006; Lipman et al, 1999; Naude et al, 2010) that investigated the
effect of various homeopathic remedies on sleep- and circadian rhythm-related problems. The
quality assessment conducted by the authors of the systematic review (using the SIGN assessment
tool) indicated that three of the trials were of “poor” quality (Kolia-Adam, 2008; Kumar, 2010; La Pine
et al, 2006). Of those three trials, one (Kumar, 2010) reported significant results in favour of
homeopathy (p<0.05) on the Profile of Mood Score (fatigue sub-scale). However, the authors noted
that the trial reported inconsistent and ambiguous p-values, so the reliability of those significant
results is not clear. The trials by Kolia-Adam (2008) and La Pine et al (2006) reported no significant
difference between treatment groups for any outcome.

In contrast, the trials by Naude et al (2010) and Lipman et al (1999) were determined to be of “fair”
quality by Davidson et al (2011). Naude studied the efficacy of individualised homeopathy compared
to placebo in patients with primary insomnia and found a statistically significant benefit of
homeopathy compared to placebo according to two outcomes (Sleep diary, p<0.05; Severity of
Insomnia Index, p<0.0001). Similarly, Lipman et al reported a significant improvement (p<0.001) in
Snoring Daily Score in the homeopathy group (80%) compared to placebo (46%).
Overall, Davidson et al (2011) found that there is mixed evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy in
sleep- and circadian rhythm-related problems. The authors stated that their confidence in the results
of the individual trials was either moderate or low and concluded that the cumulative evidence does
not warrant a “positive or a negative overall recommendation for this group”.
Ernst (2011) (AMSTAR score 6/10) performed a systematic review that focused specifically on
homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders. Three of the studies discussed above (Kolia-
Adam et al, 2008; La Pine et al, 2006; Naude et al, 2010) were also identified for inclusion by Ernst
(2011) and given quality ratings of “poor”, “moderate” and “moderate”, respectively. No significant
differences were reported for any outcome in the three trials; however, Naude et al (2010) did not
report the statistical significance of the difference in total hours of sleep (as measured by the sleep
diary), that favoured homeopathy over placebo. Three additional Level II studies by Carlini et al
(1987), Cialdella et al (2001) and Wolf (1992) investigated the efficacy of various homeopathic
remedies compared to placebo. The specific sleep-related disorder that these trials examined could
not be ascertained from the systematic review. No significant differences were reported between
homeopathy and placebo in any of the three trials for any outcome, including sleep duration, sleep
quality, improvement in night awakenings, or other clinical ratings.
Overall, Ernst (2011) concluded that the best available evidence does not support the notion that
homeopathic remedies are effective for the treatment of insomnia. Ernst (2011) also stated that
proponents of homeopathy should not make claims about positive therapeutic effects until trials
with rigorous study designs and consistently positive findings are available.
The efficacy of homeopathy in patients with insomnia was also investigated in a systematic review by
Cooper and Relton (2010) (AMSTAR score 7/10). The review included four Level II trials (Carlini et al,
1987; Cialdella et al, 2001; Kolia-Adam et al, 2008; Wolf, 1992) that were all included in the
systematic review by Ernst (2011). The review reported that none of the trials found significant
differences between homeopathy and placebo on any outcome. Cooper and Relton (2010) concluded
that the limited evidence available is flawed due to low sample sizes (as a result of poor recruitment),
high withdrawal rates and poor reporting of results in the Level II studies; however, they did not
provide quality scores for each of the included studies. Based on the available evidence, Cooper and
Relton (2010) found that there is no evidence to suggest a statistically significant effect of
homeopathic medicines for patients with insomnia.
Finally, Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) conducted an earlier systematic review that
examined the efficacy of homeopathy in a wide range of clinical conditions. The Level II study by
Carlini et al (1987) was the only study of insomnia or other sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances
included in the review. No significant differences were found between the patients who received
individual homeopathic simillimum and those who received placebo; however, the outcomes used to
measure inter-group differences were not clear. More than half of the patients (26/44) dropped out
of the study. As a result, only 18 patients were included in the analysis which draws into question the
reliability of the results.
Reviewer comments
Due to the limited evidence base and the heterogeneity of the data set, Davidson et al (2011) decided
that a meta-analysis of the results was not meaningful. The evidence reviewer supports the decision
not to pool results, as the patient populations that were included in the “sleep or circadian rhythm
disturbances” group included patients with insomnia, severe snoring, jet lag, and shift lag in night
shift workers. The homeopathic approach adopted in each of the five Level II trials also varied greatly.
Some statistically significant differences between homeopathy and placebo were achieved for
patients with severe snoring and jet lag; although there was only one trial available for each
condition, with flaws in the methodology and small sample sizes (N=23 and N=44 in jet lag and severe
snoring, respectively).
Evidence statement
Four systematic reviews of medium quality identified eight randomised controlled trials (poor to
medium quality; total of 330 participants, range: 23-96) that compared homeopathy with placebo for
the treatment of people with sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with sleep or circadian
rhythm disturbances.

Table 83 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Ernst (2011) Naude et al (2010) Not reported – Individualised Placebo Sleep diary “Change in total hours of sleep per “In conclusion, the notion
[Level I] [Level II] assumed to be homeopathy week favoured homeopathy” that homeopathic
d patients with for 4 weeks remedies are effective for
AMSTAR: 6/10 Moderate quality
N=30 insomnia or sleep- the treatment of insomnia
SR of related disorders and sleep-related
homeopathy for disorders is not supported
Kolia-Adam et al Not reported – Coffea cruda Placebo Sleep duration No significant difference
insomnia and by the best available
(2008) assumed to be 200C for 1
sleep-related Sleep pattern No significant difference evidence. It is
[Level II] patients with month
disorders d
recommended that future
Poor quality insomnia or sleep-
trials of homeopathy and
N=30 related disorders
insomnia be conducted
using adequate and
La Pine et al (2006) Nurses doing shift No-Shift-Lag Placebo Sleep quality No significant difference
rigorous study designs.
[Level II] work for 1 week
d Fatigue No significant difference Until consistently positive
Moderate quality evidence emerges,
N=34 proponents of
homeopathy should
Cialdella et al Not reported – Homeogene Placebo Clinical Global No significant difference
abstain from making such
(2001) assumed to be or Sedatif PC Impression
therapeutic claims”.
[Level II] patients with for 1 month Improvement
d insomnia or sleep- scale
Poor quality
N=96 related disorders
Wolf (1992) Not reported – Requiesan for Placebo Sleep duration No significant difference
[Level II] assumed to be 1 month
d patients with Sleep quality No significant difference
Poor quality
N=29 insomnia or sleep- Decrease in sleep No significant difference
related disorders latency (baseline;
1 month)
Percentage of No significant difference

patients

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
reporting
improvement,
night awakenings
Carlini et al (1987) Not reported – Individualised Placebo Sleep duration No significant difference
[Level II] assumed to be homeopathy
d patients with for 45 days Sleep quality No significant difference
Poor quality
N=44 insomnia or sleep- Evaluation by No significant difference
related disorders clinician
Davidson et al Kumar (2010) Patients with jet Combined Placebo POMS-Fatigue Results favour homeopathy (p<0.05). There is mixed evidence
(2011) [Level II] lag multiple Effect size: 0.24. for sleep- and circadian
[Level I] SIGN score: poor remedy rhythm-related problems.
product POMS-Vigor No significant difference between
AMSTAR: 8/10 N=23
treatment arms. Inconsistently
Two studies (Lipman et al
reported p-values; ambiguous, but
SR of 1999; Naude et al, 2010),
results warrant further study.
homeopathy for with relatively high scores
Effect size: 0.17. on GRADE evaluation,
multiple
conditions Naude et al (2010) Patients with Individualised Placebo Sleep diary Benefit for homeopathy (p<0.05). yielded predominantly
[Level II] primary insomnia homeopathy positive results. However
SII Effect size (95% CI): 2.40 (1.46, 3.34). they addressed different
SIGN score: fair
Benefit for homeopathy (p<0.0001). conditions, so the authors
N=16
do not believe that “the
DBAS No significant difference between cumulative evidence for
treatment arms. any one condition
Kolia-Adam (2008) Patients with Coffea cruda Placebo Unclear “Rate of response”: warrants with a positive or
[Level II] insomnia of less 200C Homeopathy – 33%; Placebo – 50%. a negative overall
than 1 year in Significance not reported. recommendation for this
SIGN score: poor
duration group”.
N=15 Sleep duration No significant difference between
treatment groups.

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Effect size (95% CI): 0.24 (-0.53, 1.02). There is positive evidence
that homeopathy is
Sleep No significant difference between
effective in severe snoring.
satisfaction treatment groups.
NNT: -5.99 (placebo was more
effective). “Mainly because of the
limited number of studies
Sleep pattern No significant difference between in any single category and
treatment groups. heterogeneity of the data
set, we decided that meta-
La Pine et al (2006) Night shift workers Combined 5- Placebo CAVT No significant difference between
analysis was not
[Level II] with shift lag remedy treatment groups
meaningful”
SIGN score: poor product
IIQ No significant difference between
N=34 treatment groups Overall, confidence in the
results was graded as
Fatigue Effect size: 0.03 (-0.49, 0.56)
moderate or low,
Lipman et al (1999) Patients with Combined 9- Placebo Snoring daily Statistically significant difference suggesting that further
[Level II] severe snoring remedy score favouring homeopathy. Homeopathy research could well change
SIGN score: fair product group: 80%; Control group: 46%; the estimate of effect”
N=44
e p<0.001
Global rating NNT: 2.95
Cooper and Kolia-Adam (2008) Patients with Formulaic Placebo Increase in sleep Significant improvement compared to The limited evidence
Relton (2010) [Level II] insomnia >1 year homeopathic duration baseline (homeopathy: 38 minutes, available does not indicate
[Level I] Quality not  mean age 32- medicine: compared to p=0.003; placebo: 35 minutes, a statistically significant
AMSTAR: 7/10 reported 33 years Coffea cruda baseline p=0.007). No significant inter-group effect of homeopathic
N=30 200C differences were reported medicines for insomnia
SR of treatment.
Improvement in Both groups experienced a significant
homeopathy for sleep pattern improvement from baseline. No inter-
insomnia Two studies reported a
group differences reported
trend towards better
Cialdella et al Patients with Formulaic Placebo Proportion of No significant intergroup differences. outcomes in the
(2001) insomnia homeopathic patients Homeogene-46: 10/15 (67%); Sedatif- homeopathy group,
 receiving low-dose medicines: completing the PC: 12/20 (60%); Placebo 13/36 (50%) however the differences

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
[Level II] benzodiazepines for Homeogene- study and were non-significant.
≥3 months prior to f
Quality not 46 or Sedatif- showing
baseline PC
g
improvement or
reported Major flaws existed in the
 mean age 54 years
N=96 no change in Level II studies in terms of
symptoms at 1 concealment of allocation,
month accrual of participants to
sufficiently power the
studies, and reporting of
statistical differences (e.g.
in one studies it was
unclear whether the p-
Proportion of Homeopathy groups: values referred to
patients (i) 33% (ii) 30% (iii) 37% differences between
preferring: groups or from baseline, in
(i) study Placebo group: another the p-values were
treatment (i) 19% (ii) 38% (iii) 43% misinterpreted).
(ii) prior BZD
treatment All four Level II studies
(iii) no involved small patient
treatment/other numbers, with the largest
treatment/no study reporting a lack of
preference statistical power due to
accrual difficulties. The
Number of No significant difference between
included Level II studies
patients patients in the homeopathy compared
were poorly reported with
requesting a to placebo groups
high patient withdrawal
return to BZD
rates.
treatment
Clinical Global No significant difference between

Impression patients in the homeopathy compared
Improvement to placebo groups
scale

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Wolf (1992) Patients with Formulaic Placebo Percentage of No significant difference between
[Level II] difficulty falling homeopathic patients groups, although a higher proportion
Quality not asleep or staying medicine: reporting of patients in the homeopathy group
h
reported asleep Requiesan improvement reported improvement (n=8/14; 57%)
N=29  aged 19 to 73 compared to the placebo group
years (n=4/14; 29%)
Sleep duration No significant difference between

groups, although the homeopathy
group had an increase of 30 minutes,
and the placebo group had no change
Decrease in sleep Both groups experienced significant

latency (baseline; decreases from baseline (homeopathy:
1 month) 1 hour to 30 minutes; placebo: 30
minutes to 20 minutes), although no
significant inter-group differences
were reported.
Sleep quality Both groups experienced significant

improvement from baseline; no
significant inter-group differences
were reported
Night awakenings Both groups experienced significant

improvement from baseline to 1
month; no significant inter-group
differences were reported
Carlini et al (1987) Patients with Individualised Placebo Sleep duration Both groups experienced significant
[Level II] severe insomnia homeopathic improvement from baseline to Day 15
medicine and at all timepoints until 3 months.

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Quality not (agreed by 2 No significant difference between
reported homeopaths) patients starting on intervention or
N=44 placebo
Sleep latency Both groups experienced significant

improvement from baseline to Day 15
and at all timepoints until 3 months.
No significant difference between
patients starting on intervention or
placebo
Sleep quality Both groups experienced significant

improvement from baseline to Day 15
and at all timepoints until 3 months.
placebo
Clinical Both groups experienced significant

evaluation by a improvement from baseline to Day 15
homeopath and at all timepoints until 3 months.
placebo
Linde and Carlini et al (1987) Patients with Individual Placebo Unclear No difference between groups The authors did not
Melchart (1998) [Level II] insomnia simillimum in provide an overall
i potencies C6 conclusion regarding the
[Level I] Quality:3, 4.5
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=44 to C200 efficacy of homeopathy in
insomnia; however they
SR of did state that the trial had
homeopathy for an “extremely high drop-
multiple out (rate)”.
conditions

Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; CAVT, Computer-Assisted Vigilance Test; DBAS, Dysfunctional Beliefs About Sleep; IIQ, Impact of
Intervention Questionnaire; NNT, number needed to treat; POMS, Profile of Mood States scale; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; SII, Severity of Insomnia Index; SR, systematic
review.
a
b
c
d
Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane criteria
e
Number of participants who completed evaluation. Total number randomised not reported.
f
Contains Stramonium 3DH, Hyoscyamus niger 3DH, Passiflora incarnata 3DH, Ballota foetida 3DH and Nux moschata 4CH.
g
Contains Aconitum napellus 6CH, Belladonna 6CH, Calendula officinalis 6CH, Abrus precatorius 6CH, Chelidonium majus 6CH and Viburnum opulus 6CH.
h
Contains two herbal medicines: California sleep poppy (Radix Eschscholzia californica) and green oats (Avena sativa), and two homeopathic medicines: Coffea D3 and Arnica D3.
i
Quality was assessed according to (i) Jadad score (out of five); (ii) internal validity score (out of six).

4.17 Adverse effects of cancer treatments

4.17.1 Adverse effects of venous cannulation
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of adverse effects of venous cannulation in
women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer was assessed in one systematic review (Kassab
et al, 2011) as summarised in Table 84. Kassab et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 9/10) conducted a
Cochrane review to examine the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for the treatment of adverse
effects of cancer treatments. The systematic review identified one Level II study (Bourgois, 1984)
that assessed homeopathy for the treatment of side effects of venous cannulation in women
receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Women who responded positively to homeopathic Arnica in an earlier open-label study were
recruited and randomised to receive homeopathic Arnica 5c or placebo. Efficacy was assessed based
on pain produced by the injection or haematoma(s), venous tone, and venous accessibility; none of
which were associated with statistically significant differences between the homeopathy and placebo
groups.
Kassab et al (2011) were unable to determine whether an adequate method of sequence generation
was used in Bourgois (1984). Similarly, details regarding allocation concealment and blinding were
not clear to the authors of the systematic review, although the blinding of patients and care
providers was implied. Kassab et al (2011) rated the study to have a high risk of bias and concluded
that overall there was “no convincing evidence” for the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of
adverse effects of venous cannulation in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of good quality identified one very small randomised controlled trial (poor
quality; 29 participants) that compared homeopathy (Arnica) with placebo for the treatment of the
adverse effects of venous cannulation in people undergoing chemotherapy. LOC: Very low.
conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of the
adverse effects of venous cannulation in people undergoing chemotherapy.

Table 84 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of adverse effects of venous cannulation
Study ID Included Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in the Systematic review
Level of study systematic review interpretation
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Kassab et al Bourgois Women with breast cancer Homepathic Arnica 5C – Placebo – 3 Improvements No significant inter-group In general there were
(2011) (1984)  mean age (SD): 54.41 years (7.61 three granules 4 times a granules 4 from baseline differences mixed findings or
[Level I] [Level II] years) day for 3 days before times a day for assessed by: unclear risk of bias.
AMSTAR: High risk of  receiving chemotherapy and 3 days after 3 days before  pain produced by the
d  suffering adverse effects of venous treatment, for 2 and 3 days after injection or
9/10 bias Overall the authors
cannulation chemotherapy cycles treatment, for haematoma(s)
N=29 concluded that there is
 previously responded to Arnica in an  venous tone
SR of 2 chemo- no evidence to support
open-label trial assessed by the no.
homeopathy therapy cycles the efficacy of
of haematomas
for adverse  venous accessibility homeopathic
effects of assessed by the no. medicines for adverse
cancer of attempts at effects of cancer
treatments cannulation treatments (other than
preliminary data to
support the use of
Traumeel S
mouthwash in the
treatment of
chemotherapy-induced
stomatitis).
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; C, centesimal; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
Quality assessed using the Delphi List and Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing bias.

4.17.2 Chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in women with breast
cancer was assessed in one systematic review (Kassab et al, 2011; AMSTAR score 9/10) as
summarised in Table 85. This Cochrane review was a broad review of the effectiveness of
homeopathy for the treatment of adverse effects of cancer treatments. One Level II study (Daub et
al, 2005) with an “unclear risk of bias” was identified by Kassab et al (2011) that compared two
homeopathic remedies (Vomitusheel S and Gastricumeel) with another homeopathic remedy
(Sambucus nigra D3) for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy. Sambucus nigra D3 was chosen as the comparator because it has “no antiemetic
properties”. No Level II, Level III-1 or Level III-2 studies were identified that compared homeopathy to
placebo for the treatment of chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting.
In Daub et al (2005), participants in each of the three arms received conventional antiemetics on the
first day followed by one of the three homeopathic interventions if nausea or vomiting persisted on
the second day. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring additional conventional
treatments for nausea/vomiting, which were administered if symptoms had not resolved within two
hours of receipt of homeopathic medicines or placebo.
Kassab et al (2011) reported that the trial found no significant difference between the interventions
(p=0.6), with 68.2% requiring additional medication in the intervention group compared to 59.1% in
the control group. Kassab et al (2011) stated that there was no explicit information on blinding in the
report of the trial by Daub (2005); however, the fact that there was no placebo suppository available
implied that blinding was not possible. Overall, Kassab et al (2011) concluded that there was “no
convincing evidence” for the efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in
women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Evidence statement
chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting.
One systematic review of good quality identified one small randomised controlled trial (quality
unclear; 65 participants) that compared two homeopathic medicines (Vomitusheel S and
Gastricumeel) with another homeopathic medicine with no claimed antiemetic properties for the
treatment of people with chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting. LOC: Very low.
with chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting.

Table 85 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chemotherapy-associated nausea/vomiting
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
e
Kassab et al Daub et al Women with breast cancer Vomitusheel S given as Sambucus nigra Percentage of No significant difference In general there were
g
(2011) (2005)  aged 28-67 years a suppository and D3 oral tablets patients requiring between groups. mixed findings or
f
[Level I] [Level II]  undergoing chemotherapy Gastricumeel given as additional Intervention group: unclear risk of bias.
AMSTAR: Unclear risk  all participants received standard oral tablets conventional 68.2%; control group:
of bias
d antiemetics on day 1. If nausea or treatment for 59.1% (p=0.6)
9/10 Overall the authors
vomiting occurred on subsequent nausea/vomiting
h
N=65 days, participants received either the
concluded that there is
SR of homeopathic intervention or the no evidence to support
homeopathy comparator. the efficacy of
for adverse homeopathic
effects of medicines for adverse
cancer effects of cancer
treatments treatments (other than
preliminary data to
support the use of
Traumeel S
mouthwash in the
treatment of
chemotherapy-induced
stomatitis).
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; D, decimal; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e
Vomitushell S is a proprietary complex homeopathic medicine containing Ipecacuanha D2 (1.1mg), Aesthusea D2 (1.1mg), Nux vomica D2 (1.1mg), Apomorphium hydrochloricum D4 (1.65mg),
Colchicum D4 (2.75mg), Ignatia D4 (3.3mg)
f
Gastricumeel is a proprietary complex homeopathic medicine containing Argentum nitricum D6 (30mg), Acidum arsenicosum D6 (30mg), Pulsatilla D4 (60mg), Nux vomica D4 (60mg), Carbo
vegetablis D6 (60mg), Antimonium crudum D6 (60mg)
g
The “placebo” was another homeopathic medicine that the authors chose because “no antiemetic properties had been described”.
h
Additional conventional treatment was given if nausea/vomiting had not resolved within two hours of receipt of intervention or “placebo”.

4.17.3 Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients
with cancer was assessed in three systematic reviews (Bellavite et al, 2011; Kassab et al, 2011;
Milazzo et al, 2006) as summarised in Table 86 and Table 87.
Table 86 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of chemotherapy-induced
stomatitis
Systematic review
Bellavite et al (2011) Kassab et al (2011) Milazzo et al (2006)
[Level I] [Level I] [Level I/III]
Oberbaum et al (2001)
  
[Level II]
Study ID
Oberbaum (1998)

[Level III-2]
Milazzo et al (2006) (AMSTAR score 7/10) carried out a systematic review that assessed the efficacy
of homeopathic therapy as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care and identified two studies
(Oberbaum, 1998; Oberbaum et al, 2001) that examined homeopathic TraumeelS as a treatment for
chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. The Level III-2 study by Oberbaum (1998) was a pilot, case-control
study conducted in order to inform the later Level II study by Oberbaum et al (2001). Oberbaum
(1998) reported a highly statistically significant reduction in the homeopathy group in terms of the
duration of symptoms, however no numerical evidence was provided to support the findings. The
study received a Jadad score of 0 in the quality assessment by Milazzo et al (2006), and therefore
reliability and validity of the results is questionable.
The Level II study identified by Milazzo et al (2006) (Oberbaum et al, 2001; Jadad score 4) examined
homeopathic TraumeelS in patients aged 3 to 25 that had malignant blood cancer and underwent
allogeneic or autologous stem-cell transplantation. Oberbaum et al (2001) found that the reduction
of severity and/or duration of stomatitis, mean “area under the curve”, and mean time to worsening
of symptoms all significantly favoured homeopathy. Milazzo et al (2006) did not report p-values for a
number of other outcomes, including median time to worsening of symptoms, oral pain and
discomfort, and difficulty to swallow. Overall Milazzo et al (2006) concluded that cancer patients
“appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis”
and that “encouraging results” in Oberbaum et al (2001) highlighted the need to perform a larger
trial.
Kassab et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 9/10) conducted a Cochrane review that examined the
effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of adverse effects of a variety of cancer treatments.
The Level II study by Oberbaum et al (2001) was included in the review, although Kassab et al (2011)
reported fewer outcomes from the trial than Milazzo et al (2006). Overall, Kassab et al (2011) stated
that there was “preliminary data in support of TraumeelS mouthwash in the treatment of
chemotherapy-induced stomatitis” that needs replication to provide any firm conclusions.
Finally, Bellavite et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 5/10) performed a systematic review of the
effectiveness of homeopathy for a variety of clinical conditions, including chemotherapy-associated
stomatitis from one Level II study (Oberbaum et al, 2001). Bellavite only reported the results of two
outcomes (percentage of patients who did not develop stomatitis and mean area under the curve for
stomatitis scores), the latter of which was found to significantly favour homeopathy (p<0.01). Based
on the results of the Level II study by Oberbaum et al (2001), Bellavite et al (2011) concluded that
TraumeelS “may reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children
undergoing bone marrow transplantation”.
Reviewer comments
The results of the Level II study (Oberbaum et al, 2001) were reported inconsistently between the
three systematic reviews. For example, Bellavite et al (2011) reported “percentage of patients who
did not develop stomatitis” as an outcome, suggesting that the trial was, in fact, examining Traumeel
as a prophylactic intervention. However, the description of the trial in the other two systematic
reviews (Kassab et al, 2011; Milazzo et al, 2006) and the outcomes reported suggested that the trial
examined the treatment of existing stomatitis.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of poor to good quality identified one very small randomised controlled
trial (good quality; 32 participants) and one very small prospectively designed, non-randomised
controlled study (poor quality; 27 participants) that compared homeopathy (Traumeel S) with
placebo for the treatment of people with chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.
LOC: Very low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of people with chemotherapy-induced
stomatitis.

Table 87 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis
Study ID Included Patient population Intervention Comparator Outcome Results as reported in Systematic review
Level of study the systematic review interpretation
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
Bellavite et Oberbaum Children and young adults with Homeopathic complex Placebo (local Percentage of Significance of results not “These results suggest
al (2011) et al (2001) chemotherapy-associated Traumeel-S therapy with patients who did reported that this homeopathic
[Level I] [Level II] stomatitis who had undergone mouth rinsing) not develop  Homeopathy: 33% complex may reduce
AMSTAR: Quality not stem cell transplantation stomatitis  Placebo: 7% the severity and
5/10 specified duration of
Mean AUC (severity Significant difference in chemotherapy-induced
N=32 and duration of favour of homeopathy
SR of stomatitis in children
stomatitis) (p<0.01) undergoing bone
homeopathy  Homeopathy: 10.4
for multiple marrow
 Placebo: 24.3
conditions transplantation”
e
Kassab et al Oberbaum Patients suffering from malignant TraumeelS® – supplied Placebo – Mean AUC (severity Homeopathy group: 10.4; In general there were
(2011) et al (2001) disease who had undergone as 2.2ml ampoules used supplied as and duration of Placebo group: 24.3. mixed findings or
[Level I] [Level II] allogeneic or autologous stem cell as a mouthwash for a 2.2ml ampoules stomatitis) Wilcoxon rank-sum unclear risk of bias.
AMSTAR: Low risk of transplantation minimum of 30 used as a score: 167.5; expected
d
9/10 bias  aged 3-25 years seconds, 5 times per mouthwash for score 232.5; p<0.01) There is preliminary
N=32 day, alongside standard a minimum of data to support the
mouthcare 30 seconds, 5 Time to worsening Log-rank test indicated a
SR of efficacy of Traumeel S
times per day, of symptoms statistically significant
homeopathy mouthwash in the
alongside difference between the
for adverse treatment of
standard two groups (chi-square
effects of chemotherapy-induced
mouthcare test, 13.4 with 1 degree
cancer stomatitis, but there is
of freedom; p<0.001)
treatments no evidence to support
Median time to Homeopathy group: 4.7 the efficacy of
worsening in those days; Placebo group: 4.0 homeopathic
patients whose days. Significance NR. medicines for other
symptoms adverse effects of
worsened cancer treatments.

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
Patient-reported Reduction in all three
score symptoms (pain, dryness,
dysphagia) in Traumeel
group compared to
placebo (p=NR).
g
Milazzo et al Oberbaum Patients with blood malignant TraumeelS® Placebo Mean AUC (severity Statistically significant “Cancer patients
(2006) et al (2001) cancer who underwent allogeneic and duration of difference between appear to have
[Level I/III] [Level II] or autologous stem-cell stomatitis) groups. Homeopathy: benefited from
AMSTAR: Jadad score transplantation 10.4; Placebo: 24.3; homeopathic
7/10 4
f  aged 3-25 years p<0.01 interventions
N=30 specifically for
Mean time to Statistically significant chemotherapy-induced
SR of worsening of difference between
homeopathy stomatitis”.
symptoms groups favouring
for cancer homeopathy.
treatment “The evidence
Homeopathy group: 6.9
emerging from this
days; placebo group: 4.3
systematic review is
days; p<0.001
encouraging but not
Median time to Homeopathy group: 4.7 convincing. Further
worsening in those days; placebo group: 4.0 research should
patients whose days. p-value not attempt to answer the
symptoms specified many open questions
worsened related to
homeopathy”.
Severity score Significant difference
(subgroup analysis between treatment
of patients aged groups favouring
less than 15 years) homeopathy.
Homeopathy group: 11;
placebo group: 25.9;
p<0.01

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
Oral pain and Patients in the
discomfort intervention group
experienced a reduction
(no p-values provided)
Dryness of mouth Patients in the

and tongue intervention group
Difficulty to Patients in the

swallow intervention group
Dysphagia Patients in the

intervention group
Adverse events: (i) In homeopathy and

Graft vs. host placebo groups
disease, (ii) Sepsis, respectively: (i) n=3, n=6;
(iii) GI (ii) n=3, n=8; (iii) n=0,
complications, (iv) n=5; (iv) n=4, n=0; (v)
VOD, (v) n=4, n=0
Pneumonitis
g
Oberbaum Children and teenagers with TraumeelS® Randomly Symptom duration Statistical difference
(1998) leukemia chosen controls between groups NR.
[Level III-2] from the same Homeopathy group: 6
age group with days; controls: 13 days

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
Jadad score similar stages Use of opiates Non-significant trend
f
0 of cancer, who suggesting less patients
N=27 received no in the intervention group
treatments for required opiates
stomatitis compared to the control
group (p=0.09)
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; AUC, area under the curve; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e
TraumeelS is a proprietary complex homeopathic medicine. Each 2.2ml ampoule contains: Arnica montana D2 (2.2mg), calendula officianalis D2 (2.2mg), Achillea millefolium D3 (2.2mg),
Matricharia chamomilla D2 (2.2mg), Symphytum officinale D6 (2.2mg), Atropa belladonna D2 (2.2mg), Aconitum napelus D2 (1.32mg), Bellis perenis D2 (1.1mg), Hypericum perfoliatum D2
(0.66mg), Echinacea angustifolia D2 (2.2mg), Echinacea purpurea D2 (2.2mg), Hammamelis virginica D1 (0.22mg), Mercurius solubilis D1 (1.1mg), and Hepar sulphuris D6 (2.2mg).
f
g
Traumeel® is a homeopathic preparation containing: arnica 2X, calendula 2X, millefolium 3X, chamomilla 3X, symphytum 6X, belladonna 2X ana 0.1ml, aconitum 2X 0.06ml, bellis perennis 2X
0.05ml, hypericum 2X 0.03ml, echinacea angustifolia 2X, echniacea purpurea 2X ana 0.025ml, hamamelis 1X 0.01, mercurius sol. 6X 0.05g, and hepar sulfuris 6X 0.1g.

4.17.4 Hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of women with hot flushes and a history of
breast cancer was assessed in three systematic reviews (Kassab et al, 2011; Milazzo et al, 2006; Rada
et al, 2010) as summarised in Table 88 and Table 89.
Table 88 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of hot flushes
Systematic review
Kassab et al (2011) Milazzo et al (2006) Rada et al (2010)
[Level I] [Level I/III] [Level I]
Jacobs et al (2005)
  
[Level II]
Study ID
Thompson et al (2005)
  
[Level II]
Rada et al (2010) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a Cochrane review that aimed to assess the
efficacy of non-hormonal therapies for reducing hot flushes in women with a history of breast
cancer. The authors identified two Level II studies (Jacobs et al, 2005; Thompson et al, 2005) that
compared homeopathy with placebo. Rada et al (2010) assessed the risk of bias in the included
studies using the criteria established in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions. No overall quality ratings were provided, however, both of the studies scored well
according to the majority of the quality criteria, indicating a low overall risk of bias. Jacobs et al
(2005) was a Level II study that compared two forms of homeopathy (single or combination therapy)
with placebo in women with a history of breast cancer and at least three episodes of hot flushes per
day for at least one month. There were no statistically significant differences among comparisons for
the frequency or severity score of hot flushes. There was, however, a significant improvement in
quality of life scores in women who used single or combination homeopathy (p-value not reported).
Thompson et al (2005) examined the effect of a tailored homeopathic prescription or placebo in
women with non-metastatic breast cancer who experienced more than three hot flushes per day.
The study reported that no significant effects were observed in a four-item profile score that
included two self-rated symptom items, an activity of daily living item and a general feeling of well-
being item (mean difference -0.10; 95% CI -4.86, 4.66).
Rada et al (2010) noted that the major limitation of the two included studies was loss to follow up.
The authors concluded that “the available evidence suggests that homeopathy provides no
significant benefit compared to placebo” and “even though the studies had limited power to show an
effect, none of them showed significant benefit or supported the use of homeopathy”.
Kassab et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 9/10) conducted a Cochrane review that focused specifically on
homeopathy for the treatment of adverse effects of cancer treatments. The same two studies
included in Rada et al (2010) (Jacobs et al, 2005; Thompson et al, 2005). The studies were both
assessed to be of “high quality and low risk of bias” by Kassab et al (2011). Kassab et al (2011)
reported that the primary outcome investigated by Jacobs et al (2005) was hot flush severity score,
which was not associated with a significant difference between the intervention group (single and
combination homeopathic remedies) and placebo. However a post hoc, subgroup analysis indicated
that patients not receiving tamoxifen that were randomised to combination homeopathic medicine

(Hyland’s menopause) had significantly higher hot flush severity scores and total number of hot
flushes than the single remedy and placebo groups. Thompson et al (2005) was reported as finding
no statistically significant differences between individualised homeopathy and placebo, based on
symptom and mood disturbances or other self-reported outcomes. Overall, Kassab et al (2011)
concluded that there was “no convincing evidence” for the efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment
of hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer.
Finally, Milazzo et al (2006) (AMSTAR score 7/10) carried out a systematic review that assessed the
efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. The authors identified the same two Level II
studies (Jacobs et al, 2005; Thompson et al, 2005), and gave them both Jadad scores of 5. Milazzo et
al (2006) reported that the study by Jacobs et al (2005) found that homeopathy resulted in an
improvement in general health score compared with placebo (p<0.03 and p=0.02 in the combination
and single remedies, respectively). In addition, Jacobs et al (2005) was reported to have found that
the whole combination therapy group had statistically significantly higher rates of headaches than
those in the other treatment arms (p=0.03). Consistent with the other systematic reviews, Milazzo et
al (2006) reported that Thompson et al (2005) found no statistically significant differences between
individualised homeopathy and placebo. Milazzo et al (2006) stated that even though the trials
received a Jadad score of 5 they were not devoid of flaws, particularly small sample sizes that
precluded definitive conclusions. Overall, the Milazzo et al (2006) concluded that there is
“insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy” of homeopathy in cancer care.
Reviewer comments
There was substantial heterogeneity between the trials, particularly in terms of the homeopathic
remedies prescribed. Thirty five different homeopathic medicines were prescribed in Jacobs et al
(2005) and 71 different homeopathic medicines were prescribed in Thompson et al (2005). Only two
of the five most commonly prescribed remedies were common to both studies. The trials by Jacobs et
al (2005) and Thompson et al (2005) also adopted considerably different primary outcomes;
menopausal symptoms and a patient-reported outcome (Measure Your Medical Outcome Profile),
respectively.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of medium to good quality identified two randomised controlled trials
(good quality; 53 and 83 participants) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the treatment of
hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer.
These studies are of insufficient size to warrant further consideration of their findings. LOC: Low.
homeopathy is more effective than placebo for the treatment of hot flushes in women with a history
of breast cancer.

Table 89 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Kassab et al Jacobs et al Women with a history of Individualised Placebo Hot flush severity Positive trend towards an In general there were
(2011) (2005) carcinoma in situ or Stage homeopathy – score improvement in the single mixed findings or
[Level I] [Level II] I to III breast cancer unrestricted remedy remedy group during the first unclear risk of bias.
AMSTAR: 9/10 Low risk of  who had completed all choice and three months of the study,
d surgery, chemotherapy and unrestricted ability
bias however the trend was not Overall the authors
N=83 radiotherapy to change remedy significant (p=0.1) concluded that there is
SR of  with hot flushes for at least (single medicine
homeopathy no evidence to support
one month, with an given once monthly General health score Statistically significant
for adverse average of at least three the efficacy of
or bimonthly); or (SF-36) at 1 year improvement in both
effects of hot flushes per day in the homeopathic
Hyland’s homeopathy groups (p<0.05)
cancer week prior to beginning e
medicines for adverse
treatments treatment Menopause (given General health score Significantly increase in both effects of cancer
 mean age: 55.5 years 3 times a day) (SF-36) compared with homeopathy groups treatments (other than
placebo compared with placebo preliminary data to
(p=NR) support the use of
Traumeel S
Hot flush severity Highly statistically significant mouthwash in the
score (post hoc increase in the combination treatment of
subgroup analysis homeopathic group chemotherapy-induced
defined by use of (subgroup of patients not stomatitis).
tamoxifen) receiving tamoxifen)
Thompson et al Women treated for Individualised Placebo Symptoms and mood Clinically relevant
(2005) breast cancer homeopathy – disturbances improvements for both
[Level II]  more than three hot unrestricted remedy groups. Inter-group
Low risk of flushes per day choice and differences not reported
bias
d  no metastatic disease unrestricted ability
 not on any other treatment to change remedy MYMOP activity score No evidence of a difference
N=53
for hot flushes between groups (adjusted
 not undergoing, or about difference: -0.4,
the receive, any adjuvant 95% CI -0.9, 0.1, p=0.13)
chemotherapy
 mean age: 52.7 years

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Rada et al Jacobs (2005) Women (mean age 55.5 Single or Placebo SF-36 Significant improvement in The available evidence
(2010) [Level II] years) with a history of combination QoL scores in women using suggests that
[Level I] Quality not breast cancer (carcinoma (Hyland’s single or combination homeopathy provides
AMSTAR: 8/10 specified in situ and stages I to III) menopause) homeopathy (p=NR) no significant benefit
N=83  at least 3 episodes of hot homeopathic compared to placebo
flushes per day for at least remedies Total number of hot No significant difference
SR of CAM for flushes
one month Even though the
hot flushes  58% on tamoxifen
Hot flush severity No significant difference studies had limited
 65% taking unspecified
hormones score power to show an
effect, none of them
Kupperman No significant difference reported significant
Menopausal Index benefit or supported
the use of homeopathy
Thompson Women (mean age 52 Individualised Placebo MYMOP activity score No significant difference
(2005) years) with non- homeopathy Mean difference: -0.10 (95%
[Level II] metastatic breast cancer CI -4.86, 4.66)
Quality not  more than 3 hot flushes per
specified day Daily living disruption No significant difference
N=53  80% on tamoxifen and general well-being
 baseline hot flush
frequency of 7.5 per day Frequency and severity No significant difference
of hot flushes
QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30) No significant difference
HADS No significant difference
Overall satisfaction No significant difference

with homeopathy
(measure not
specified)
Impact on daily living No significant difference
Side-effects No significant difference

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
Milazzo et al Jacobs et al Breast cancer survivors Verum single Placebo General health score Significant improvement in There is insufficient
g
(2006) (2005) remedy plus (SF-36) compared with both homeopathy groups evidence to support
[Level I] [Level II] placebo, or a verum placebo compared to placebo clinical efficacy of
f combination (p<0.03, combination; homeopathic therapy
N=83 medicine (Hyland’s p=0.02, single) in cancer care.
h
SR of menopause) plus a
verum single Hot flush severity Statistically significantly
homeopathy score (subgroup not higher in combination group
for cancer remedy
receiving tamoxifen) than single remedy (p<0.001;
treatment 95% CI -51.9, 15.0).
Statistically significantly
higher in combination
homeopathy group than
placebo (p=0.01; 95% CI 6.2,
47.1)
Total number of hot Statistically significantly

flushes (subgroup not higher in combination group
receiving tamoxifen) than single remedy
(p=0.002). Statistically
significantly higher in
combination homeopathy
group than placebo
(p=0.006)
Headaches Statistically significant

increase in headaches in the
combination group (p=0.03)
Thompson et al Breast cancer survivors 71 different Placebo MYMOP activity score No significant difference
(2005) with oestrogen remedies (tablets, between treatment groups
withdrawal symptoms liquid, or granules) (p=0.17; 95% CI -1.0, 0.2)

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample size
[Level II]  no more than three hot MYMOP overall profile No significant difference
f flushes per day
Jadad score 5 score between treatment groups
 without metastatic disease (p=0.13; 95% CI -0.9, 0.1)
N=53
 no concurrent treatment
for hot flushes
 not undergoing
chemotherapy
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; CI, confidence interval; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MYMOP, Measure Your Medical Outcome Profile; NR, not reported; QoL, quality
of life; SF-36, Short Form-36; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e
Hyland’s Menopause is a proprietary combination homeopathic medicine of Amyl Nitrate 3x, Sanguinaria Canadensis 3x and Lachesis 12x.
f
g
Single remedies consist of 35 different homeopathic medications, mainly: sepia, calcarea carbonica, sulphur, lachesis, and kali carbinicum
h
Hyland’s menopause contains: amyl nitrate, sanguinaria canadensis, and lachesis

4.17.5 Radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients undergoing

radiotherapy
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients
undergoing radiotherapy was assessed in three systematic reviews (Kassab et al, 2011; Milazzo et al,
2006; Simonart et al, 2011) as summarised in Table 90. In total, the systematic reviews identified one
Level II study (Balzarini et al, 2000) that specifically examined homeopathy for the treatment of
radiodermatitis in breast cancer patients.
Kassab et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 9/10) was a Cochrane review that examined homeopathic
therapies for the treatment of adverse effects of a variety of cancer treatments. Although Kassab et
al (2011) identified the Level II study by Balzarini et al (2000) for inclusion in their review, it was not
clear whether the remedy (homeopathic Belladonna 7c and X-ray 15c) was used for preventative or
therapeutic purposes. The findings of the study reported in Kassab et al (2011) were that there was
no significant difference in the total severity of skin reactions during radiotherapy, but there was a
significant reduction in severity in the homeopathy group during recovery (p=0.05), compared to
placebo. The assessment of total severity of skin reaction was assessed by physicians based on skin
colour, heat to touch, hyperpigmentation and oedema.
Kassab et al (2011) reported that the Level II study by Balzarini et al (2000) had an “unclear risk of
bias” and concluded that “there is no evidence to support the efficacy” of homeopathic Belladonna
7c and X-ray 15c for the treatment of radiodermatitis in women undergoing radiotherapy for breast
cancer.
Milazzo et al (2006) (AMSTAR score 7/10) carried out a systematic review that assessed the efficacy
of homeopathic therapy as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. The authors reported that the
Level II study by Balzarini et al (2000; Jadad score 4) found transient benefits in the homeopathy
group based on hyperpigmentation and skin heat that were no longer statistically significant by the
10-week follow-up. Milazzo et al (2006) concluded that there is “insufficient evidence to support
clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care”.
Simonart et al (2011) (AMSTAR score 8/10) conducted a systematic review that examined the
effectiveness of homeopathy in treating a variety of dermatological conditions. The authors of the
systematic review reported that the Level II study by Balzarini et al (2000) found no significant
differences between homeopathy and placebo across four outcomes. Simonart et al (2011) did not
discuss the quality of Balzarini et al (2000), but concluded that “the hypothesis that any
dermatological condition responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or
other control interventions is not supported by evidence”.
Evidence statement
Three systematic reviews of medium to good quality identified one small randomised controlled trial
(medium quality; 66 participants) that compared homeopathy (Belladona) with placebo for the
treatment of radiodermatitis in women with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy. LOC: Very low -
low.
effectiveness of homeopathy compared to placebo for the treatment of radiodermatitis in women
with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

Table 90 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of radiodermatitis in patients undergoing radiotherapy
a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
Simonart et Balzarini et Breast cancer patients aged 28-70 Belladona 7 cH and X- Placebo Breast skin colour No significant difference “The hypothesis that
al (2011) al (2000) years with radiodermatitis and ray 15 cH for 10 weeks score any dermatological
[Level I] [Level II] who are undergoing radiotherapy condition responds
AMSTAR: Quality not convincingly better to
Warmth score No significant difference homeopathic
8/10 specified
N=66 treatment than to
SR of placebo or other
homeopathy control interventions is
Swelling score No significant difference
for multiple not supported by
conditions evidence”.
Pigmentation score No significant difference (Note: this conclusion

specific to skin
reactions during
radiotherapy)
Kassab et al Balzarini et Women who had undergone Belladonna 7cH – three Placebo Total severity of No significant difference In general there were
(2011) al (2000) conservative surgery for breast granules twice daily and skin reactions between groups mixed findings or
[Level I] [Level II] cancer and were being treated X-ray 15cH three during radiotherapy unclear risk of bias.
AMSTAR: Unclear risk with radiotherapy granules once daily (based on skin
d
9/10 of bias  mean age: 52.7 years, range: 28.3 to colour, heat to There is preliminary
N=66 70 years touch, data to support the
SR of hyperpigmentation efficacy of Traumeel S
homeopathy and oedema) mouthwash in the
for adverse treatment of

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
effects of Total severity of Statistically significant chemotherapy-induced
cancer skin reactions reduction in stomatitis, but there is
treatments during recovery homeopathy-treated no evidence to support
(based on skin patients (p=0.05) the efficacy of
colour, heat to homeopathic
touch, oedema and medicines for other
hyperpigmentation) adverse effects of
cancer treatments.
Milazzo et al Balzarini et Breast cancer patients undergoing Belladonna 7cH (three Placebo Hyperpigmentation Significantly less There is insufficient
(2006) al (2000) radiotherapy granules, twice a day) hyperpigmentation in the evidence to support
[Level I/III] [Level II] and X-ray 15cH (once a homeopathy group at clinical efficacy of
AMSTAR: Jadad score day) Week 5 (p=0.050); the homeopathic therapy
e difference was no longer in cancer care.
7/10 4
N=61 statistically significant by
SR of the end of the 10-week
homeopathy follow-up (p=0.060)
for cancer Skin heat Significant decrease in
treatment the homeopathy group
compared to placebo at
Week 8 (p=0.011).
However the benefit was
transient as the
difference was no longer
significant at the 10-
week follow-up (p=0.250)
Total severity score More favourable in the

intervention group
during radiotherapy and

a
evidence Level of
b a
Quality evidence
c
Quality
Sample
size
recovery. Statistically
significant in recovery
only (p=0.05)
Frequency of Higher frequency in the

oedema intervention group -
statistically significant
difference at Weeks 5
and 6 (p=0.025)
Adverse event – Statistical difference

hot flushes, between groups NR.
perspiration and Homeopathy group: n=1;
migraine placebo group: n=0
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; cH, Hahnemannian centesimal scale; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review.
a
b
c
d
e

4.18 Pain
4.18.1 Chronic facial pain
The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with chronic facial pain was assessed
in one systematic review (Myers et al, 2002). Myers et al (2002) (AMSTAR score 3/5) was a
systematic review of complementary and alternative medicines used to treat chronic facial pain,
which failed to identify any Level II studies that tested the effects of homeopathy.
Evidence statement
assessed the effectiveness of homeopathy in people with chronic facial pain.

4.18.2 Lower back pain

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with lower back pain was assessed in
one systematic review (Quinn et al, 2006; AMSTAR score 5/10), as summarised in Table 91.
Quinn et al (2006) examined the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the
management of lower back pain. The systematic review did not identify any Level II, Level III-1 or
Level III-2 studies that compared homeopathy to placebo. However, one high-quality Level II study
(Stam et al, 2001) was identified which assessed the effect of a homeopathic gel in patients with
lower back pain in comparison to a ‘standard’ capsicum-based product. The study reported that
“both products (were) equally effective but homeopathic gel had less adverse effects”. Overall,
Quinn et al (2006) concluded that “while RCTs for those therapies which were investigated produced
encouraging results, small sample sizes and the low number of trials investigating individual
therapies prevents definite conclusions being drawn”.
Reviewer comments
Although Quinn et al (2006) indicated that the study by Stam et al (2001) was of high methodological
quality, the effectiveness of the comparator (capsicum-based product, Cremor Capsici Compositus) is
unclear and thus the finding of “equal effectiveness” should be interpreted with caution.
Consequently, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy for lower
back pain without a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
Evidence statement
lower back pain.
One systematic review of poor quality identified one medium-sized randomised controlled trial (good
quality; 161 participants) that compared homeopathy (Spiroflor SRL) with Cremor Capsici Compositus
for the treatment of people with lower back pain.
This study did not detect a difference between homeopathy and Cremor Capsici Compositus in the
treatment of people with lower back pain and concluded that the products were equally effective.
LOC: Low - moderate.
Based on one medium-sized good quality study there is some evidence that homeopathy is as
effective as Cremor Capsici Compositus (a capsicum based product) for the treatment of people with
lower back pain.
However, the effectiveness of Cremor Capsici Compositus for the treatment of people with lower
back pain is unclear, and it is likely that the study was not sufficiently large to demonstrate ‘equal
effectiveness’. In addition, no placebo controlled studies were identified. Further, the findings of this
study have not been confirmed by other good quality, sufficiently sized studies.
Based on the body of evidence evaluated in this review there is no reliable evidence on which to
draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of people with lower
back pain.

Table 91 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of lower back pain
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Quinn et al Stam et al (2001) Not reported. Assumed Homeopathic gel (Spiroflor Standard VAS for pain “Both products equally “While RCTs for
(2006) [Level II] to be patients with SRL) Capsicum- effective but homeopathic those therapies
d lower back pain based Paracetamol use gel had less adverse effects”. which were
[Level I] Quality: high
AMSTAR: 5/10 N=161 product Sleep investigated
(Cremor disturbance produced
SR of CAM for Capsici encouraging results,
pain Compositus) Absence from including yoga,
work homeopathy, herbal
therapies, and
Patient and hypnotherapy, small
general sample sizes and the
practitioner low number of trials
satisfaction investigating
Presence of individual therapies
adverse effects prevents definite
conclusions being
drawn.”
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; SR, systematic review; SRL, undefined. This is the name of the
homeopathic gel; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c
d
Study quality as assessed using the van Tulder methodological quality criterion.

4.18.3 Pain in dental practice

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with pain in dental practice was
assessed in two systematic reviews (Linde and Melchart, 1998; Raak et al, 2012). In total, the
systematic reviews included five Level II studies as summarised in Table 92 and Table 93.
Table 92 Matrix indicating the studies that were included in the systematic reviews of pain in dental practice
Systematic review
Raak et al (2012) Linde and Melchart (1998)
[Level I] [Level I]
Sardella (2008)

[Level II]
Rafai (2004)

[Level II]
Study ID
Lökken et al (1995)
 
[Level II]
Albertini (1984)

[Level II]
Bendre (1980)

[Level II]
Raak et al (2012) (AMSTAR score of 7/11) performed a systematic review of the literature on the use
of homeopathic Hypericum perforatum (St John’s Wort) for pain conditions in dental practice. The
results of five Level II studies were included in their analysis, many of which examined the use of
Hypericum perforatum in combination with homeopathic Arnica. Three studies were rated as weak in
quality (Albertini, 1984; Bendre, 1980; Lökken et al, 1995), one was rated as strong in quality (Rafai,
2004) and the quality of one Level II study was not specified (Sardella, 2008). Raak et al (2012) noted
that a major limitation of the included studies was that they were “highly likely” to be confounded,
mostly by the use of Arnica.
Sardella (2008) was a Level II study that examined the effect of homeopathic Hypericum perforatum
in patients with burning mouth syndrome. The study reported no significant difference in pain relief
between the homeopathy and placebo groups; however, the number of sites with reported burning
sensation was “reduced significantly”. It was unclear from the systematic review whether the
reduction referred to a significant difference in the homeopathy group compared to placebo or
baseline. Rafai (2004) was a study of homeopathic Hypericum perforatum with Arnica in patients
with trismus and postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Lökken et al (1995) examined the
effect of homeopathic treatment (homeopathic Hypericum perforatum with Arnica) in patients with
postoperative pain and other inflammatory events after bilateral oral surgery. Neither of the Level II
studies reported a significant difference between homeopathy and placebo for any of the primary
outcomes. Lökken et al (1995) noted, however, that treatment “tended to improve ability to open
mouth”. Albertini (1984) reported “significant improvements (in pain reduction) after Day 2” in
patients with dental neuropathic pain. Similarly, Bendre (1980) observed that 93% of patients with
pain following tooth extraction showed significant improvements in pain relief and swelling after 48

hours. In both Level II studies, it was unclear if the significant effect was in favour of homeopathic
Hypericum perforatum and Arnica or placebo.
Raak et al (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of the results from four of the included Level II studies
(Albertini, 1984; Bendre, 1980; Lökken et al, 1995; Rafai, 2004). The study found no statistically
significant difference in dental pain between homeopathic Hypericum perforatum and placebo, but
the effect slightly favoured homeopathy (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06, 1.03). The authors also noted that the
meta-analysis was highly heterogeneous (I2=0.89). Importantly, at the time of the systematic review
there were no properly conducted Level II studies that had tested the effect of Hypericum
perforatum alone. In addition to the studies discussed above, Raak et al (2012) examined case
reports that suggested a therapeutic effect of Hypericum perforatum; however, the results were
usually confounded by Arnica. Overall, the authors concluded that “evidence from RCTs does not
support the use of Hypericum perforatum alone, for pain conditions in dental care”. In addition, “the
use of Hypericum perforatum is currently not adequately supported by properly conducted clinical
trials with Hypericum perforatum alone”.
Linde and Melchart (1998) (AMSTAR score 8/11) also conducted a systematic review of the efficacy
of individualised homeopathy across a range of clinical conditions, including pain after oral surgery.
The same Level II study by Lökken et al (1995) was identified that compared treatment preference,
pain, swelling and bleeding in patients treated with homeopathy and placebo in a cross-over design.
Although swelling favoured homeopathy, treatment preference favoured placebo. None of the
differences were reported to be statistically significant. Linde and Melchart (1998) stated that the
trial was rigorous in terms of methodology; however, it was thought to have an “artificial study
model” due to an unusually high frequency of remedy application. Overall, the authors of the
systematic review concluded that, across all clinical conditions, any evidence suggesting that
Evidence statement
Two systematic reviews of medium quality identified five randomised controlled trials (poor to good
quality; total of 364 participants, range: 24-200) that compared homeopathy with placebo for the
treatment of people with pain in dental practice. LOC: Very low - low.
placebo for the treatment of people with pain in dental practice.

Table 93 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of pain in dental practice
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Raak et al Sardella (2008) Patients with burning 300mg capsules containing Placebo Pain relief No significant results “The use of
(2012) [Level II] mouth syndrome H. perforatum extract Hypericum
(hypericin 0.31% and Number of sites “Reduced significantly” perforatum is
[Level I] Quality not
hyperforin 3.0%) three with reported (unclear whether vs placebo currently not
AMSTAR: 7/11 specified
times a day for 12 weeks burning or baseline) adequately
N=39 sensation
SR of supported by
homeopathy Rafai (2004) Patients with trismus 3+3 globuli of Placebo Reduction of No significant results properly conducted
for pain [Level II] and postoperative pain Arnica/Hypericum D30 trismus clinical trials with
after third molar before surgery and Hypericum
Quality: strong
surgery continued for 5 Pain relief No significant results perforatum alone”
N=41
postoperative days
Lökken et al Patients with 3 globuli of Placebo Pain relief No significant results

(1995) postoperative pain and Arnica/Hypericum D30, 3
other inflammatory hours after tooth Swelling No significant results, but
[Level II]
events after bilateral extraction and 2 doses treatment tended to
Quality: weak
oral surgery before bedtime and the improve ability to open
N=24 mouth
morning after
Postoperative No significant results
bleeding
Albertini (1984) Patients with dental 4+4 granula of Placebo Pain reduction “Significant improvements
[Level II] neuropathic pain Arnica/Hypericum directly after Day 2”
Quality: weak after the visit and for 2
N=60 days
Bendre (1980) Patients with post 4 globuli of Placebo Pain relief and “93% of patients showed
[Level II] extraction pain and Arnica/Hypericum directly swelling (not significant improvements in
Quality: weak swelling after tooth extraction and reported pain relief and swelling after
N=200 15 minutes later separately) 48 hours”
Linde and Lökken et al Patients with pain after Best-fitting simillimum Placebo Treatment “No significant differences”. “Rigorous trial;

a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
d
Melchart (1995) oral surgery (83% from 6 predefined preference 11 patients preferred uncommonly high
(1998) [Level II] female; age 19 to 28 remedies in D30 given (cross-over homeopathy; 13 preferred frequency of remedy
e years) according to a fixed design) placebo. application; rather
[Level I] Quality: 5, 5.5
AMSTAR: 8/11 N=24 scheme (highly repetitive) Rate ratio (95% CI): 0.85 artificial study
(0.48, 1.50) model”
SR of Pain “Pain similar in both groups”
homeopathy
for multiple Bleeding “Bleeding similar in both
conditions groups”
Swelling “Less swelling in

homeopathy group”
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; D, decimal; SR, systematic review; SRL, undefined. This is the name
of the homeopathic gel; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c
d
The date of the publication was reported as 1994 in the systematic review by Linde and Melchart (1998); however the evidence reviewer believes that it was a typing error and has
referred to the study as “Lökken et al (1995)”.
e
Quality was assessed using two measures: (i) Jadad score, out of five; (ii) internal validity score, out of six.

4.18.4 Pain following orthopaedic surgery

The effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of patients with pain was assessed in one
systematic review (Roberts et al, 2012; AMSTAR score 7/10), as summarised in Table 94.
The aim of the systematic review by Roberts et al (2012) was “to determine which analgesic
modalities used following discharge, have the greatest efficacy in reducing postoperative pain after
elective non-axial orthopaedic surgery”. Three good-quality Level II studies examining the effect of
homeopathic Arnica in patients undergoing either knee procedures or carpal tunnel release
procedures were identified (Brinkhaus et al, 2006; Jeffrey and Belcher 2002; Stevinson et al, 2003).
None of the Level II studies reported a significant difference between homeopathy and placebo for
the primary outcomes. However, Jeffrey and Belcher (2002) reported “reduced hand discomfort
during Week 2 despite the use of higher potency Arnica and preoperative medication”. Roberts et al
(2012) concluded that “homeopathy is not an effective analgesic modality”.
Evidence statement
One systematic review of medium quality identified three randomised controlled trials (good quality;
total of 181 participants, range: 37-82) that compared homeopathy (Arnica) with placebo for the
treatment of people with pain following orthopaedic surgery. LOC: Low.
placebo for the treatment of people with pain following orthopaedic surgery.

Table 94 Evidence summary table: the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of pain following orthopaedic surgery
a a
evidence evidence
b c
Quality Quality
Sample size
Roberts et al Brinkhaus et al Patients undergoing Homeopathic Arnica Placebo Pain reduction No difference between the “Homeopathy is not
(2012) (2006) knee procedures following knee surgery intervention and placebo an effective analgesic
[Level I] [Level II] (cruciate ligament, or (cruciate ligament repair or groups modality”
d knee arthroscopy) knee arthroplasty)
AMSTAR: 7/10 Quality: 5/5
N=82
SR of CAM for
Stevinson et al Patients undergoing Arnica 30C or Arnica 6C Placebo Pain reduction No significant differences
pain
(2003) carpal tunnel release following elective carpal between intervention and
[Level II] procedures tunnel surgery, three times placebo groups, although
d per day placebo group had less pain
Quality: 5/5
N=62 on Day 9
Jeffrey and Patients undergoing Arnica D6 tablets and Placebo Level of pain “Reduced hand discomfort
Belcher (2002) carpal tunnel release ointment following during Week 2 despite the
[Level II] procedures endoscopic carpal tunnel use of higher potency Arnica
d release (bilateral), three and preoperative
Quality: 5/5
N=37 times per day medication”
Abbreviations: AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; CAM, complementary and alternative medicines; C, centesimal; D, decimal; SR, systematic review; SRL, undefined. This is
the name of the homeopathic gel; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a
b
c
d
Study quality as assessed using the Oxford Quality Score. The higher the quality score out of 5, the higher the quality of the study.

5 Discussion
5.1 Summary of main results

The 57 systematic reviews included for assessment in this Overview Report examined the evidence
on homeopathy for a total of 68 clinical conditions. The relevant reviews tended to have one of three
main objectives (i) to review a variety of CAM, including homeopathy, for the treatment of a
particular clinical condition or specific clinical area; (ii) to review homeopathy for the treatment of
one clinical condition; or (iii) to review homeopathy for the treatment of a variety of clinical
conditions. Of the 68 clinical conditions included in this overview, seven were the subject of
systematic reviews that identified no relevant primary studies (glaucoma, children with constipation,
nocturnal enuresis, men with lower urinary tract symptoms, personality disorder, dementia and
chronic facial pain). Consequently, no concluding statement about the efficacy of homeopathy for
these specific conditions could be made.
For the remaining 61 clinical conditions, the evidence-base concerning the efficacy of homeopathy
comes from many poorly designed, conducted, and reported primary studies. Importantly, for 31
clinical conditions, the evidence base consists of only one Level II or Level III-2 study. In 36 of the 61
conditions, the total number of participants included in the trial(s) was less than 150; therefore, the
evidence base for the majority of clinical conditions was considered of insufficient size to enable
clear conclusions on the efficacy of homeopathy to be drawn. Of the remaining 25 clinical conditions,
there were 15 conditions for which the total number of participants included in the trial(s) was
between 150 and 499, and 10 conditions for which the evidence base collectively comprised 500 or
more participants.
The paucity of good quality primary studies, the preponderance of studies with small sample size and
insufficient power, and the lack of replication of results in multiple studies made the interpretation of
apparent ‘significant’ differences in favour of homeopathy over placebo difficult. Many studies also
failed to use (or report) appropriate comparators, blinding, or randomization, all of which would be
necessary to permit a high level of confidence in the outcomes reported. Accordingly, in rating the
body of evidence, the overall shortcomings of the primary evidence limited the ability of the
evidence review team to draw conclusions as to the efficacy of homeopathy for many of the clinical
conditions included in this overview.
5.2 Overall completeness and quality of evidence

All of the systematic reviews included in this overview contained limitations that affected the ability
of the evidence reviewer to evaluate the evidence. These limitations stemmed from the variable
quality of the primary study data as well as the quality of the systematic reviews themselves. In
general, the evidence base for homeopathy is not of high quality. Many of the individual studies were
poorly designed, conducted and reported. In addition, most of the individual studies were small in
size and likely to be insufficiently powered to detect a statistically significant outcome.
In primary studies that examined the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to non-placebo
comparators, the small number of participants included in the trials is of particular concern. A
number of the studies interpreted a lack of difference between the two treatment arms as
“equivalence” between homeopathy and the non-placebo comparator, or stated that homeopathy
was “as effective” as the other therapy. It is highly likely that the studies were underpowered and

could not have demonstrated “equivalence” between treatments. As a result, claims of equivalence
must be interpreted with caution. Because of the shortcomings within the primary studies, the
overall completeness and quality of the systematic reviews was also limited.
Several systematic reviews were identified that examined the effectiveness of homeopathy for
multiple clinical conditions as described in Section 4.2. In some of these reviews, an overall
conclusion was often drawn instead of specific conclusions for each clinical condition. Other
systematic reviews were broad reviews of various CAM, including homeopathy, for the treatment of
a particular clinical condition or specific clinical area. In these cases, the level of detail provided on
the homeopathy studies was often limited. Some systematic reviews (Cucherat et al 2000; Linde et al
1997; Linde and Melchart 1998) also performed a ‘mega’ meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
homeopathy across clinical conditions, often without separate presentation of the meta-analysed
results for the individual clinical conditions. The appropriateness of these meta-analyses is
questionable as the included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of the investigated clinical
condition, study design, intervention, comparator, outcomes reported and overall quality.
Publication bias may also have impacted the findings of the evidence review. Although many of the
systematic review authors acknowledged the risk of publication bias, very few attempted to quantify
the likelihood that publication bias affected the overall evidence base (using graphical aids or
statistical tests). Publication bias is a complex issue, particularly for therapies such as homeopathy.
Journals of complementary and alternative medicines may be more likely to publish trials with
positive findings, despite significant methodological flaws; whereas mainstream medical journals
may tend to publish more rigorous trials with negative results. There is also the possibility that the
mainstream journals would not publish homeopathy trials with negative results, as the publication of
such trials could be perceived to be of little relevance or interest for the mainstream on the basis
that the field of homeopathy as a whole has already been deemed to be inefficacious and
unscientific (Barnes et al 1997). Indeed, in an investigation of 110 homeopathy trials, Shang et al
(2005) noted that sources of heterogeneity included the language of publication (more beneficial
effects in trials published in languages other than English), indexing in MEDLINE (more beneficial
effects in trials not indexed in MEDLINE) and indicators of trial quality (more beneficial effects in
trials of lower quality). Importantly, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial
treatment effect of homeopathy than larger and higher quality trials (Shang et al, 2005).
5.3 Limitations
Although the approach adopted in this overview of systematic reviews guarantees that the widest
possible range of high-quality evidence is identified and included, it is limited by the quality of the
included systematic reviews. Many of the systematic reviews inadequately reported the included
trials and it was often difficult to ascertain details as to the length of follow up, the outcomes
examined, and the statistical and clinical significance of the results. Indeed, the authors of the
reviews often commented on the poor reporting and serious methodological flaws of the included
studies. The quality assessment of included primary trials sometimes differed between systematic
reviews making it difficult to determine if the apparent inadequacies of the systematic reviews were,
in fact, shortcomings of the included trials or of the reviews themselves.
The evidence reviewer would argue that the overview process was limited by elements of poor
reporting and flawed methodology in the primary studies, exacerbated by incomplete reporting in
the systematic reviews. The classification of primary studies as Level II or Level III-2 studies also relied

on information reported in the systematic reviews. As a result of these limitations, the evidence
reviewers did not place a “high” level of confidence in the evidence base for any clinical condition,
and the majority of conditions were associated with “low” or “very low” levels of confidence.
The evidence reviewers acknowledge that a limitation to this overview was the assessment of
‘effectiveness’ based on statistical significance and not clinical significance. This was, however,
necessary due to the poor reporting and lack of analyses by the included systematic reviews and
primary studies. Without the reporting of intervention effects, decisions could not be made about
the clinical importance of the intervention.
Another limitation was the process by which outcomes were aggregated in order to determine the
overall effectiveness of homeopathy for each clinical condition. Ideally, the overview would have
included one evidence statement for each outcome within each clinical condition. However, this was
not possible due to the large number of outcomes and variable reporting of those outcomes
between the different systematic reviews. As a result, outcomes were aggregated in order to
formulate one evidence statement per clinical condition. It was also not possible to create a
hierarchy of clinically relevant outcomes prior to conducting the overview because the clinical
conditions that would ultimately be included in the Overview Report were not known. Although it
would have been possible to prioritise outcomes post hoc, such a process would have been subject
to bias and was therefore avoided. Consequently, all outcomes reported in the systematic reviews
were taken into account when the evidence statements were formulated unless the HWC
determined that a particular outcome had no clinical relevance.
Additionally, it was difficult for the evidence reviewer to compare the quality of primary studies that
had been examined in different systematic reviews. This limitation stemmed from the fact that the
systematic reviewers often used different scoring systems to rate the quality of the individual studies
(e.g. risk of bias assessments vs Jadad scores). The various scoring systems are inherently different
and likening a ‘poor’ quality trial based on one scoring system to a ‘poor’ quality trial based on
another system is problematic. Nevertheless, the evidence reviewer felt that it was necessary to
comment on the quality of the individual studies in the evidence statements and, as a result, various
scoring systems have been used for the comparison of study quality.
A further limitation of the overview process is that no attempt was made to systematically identify
any recent Level II studies that may not have been included in a systematic review, but met the
inclusion criteria described in the primary clinical research question. An additional report was
produced by the evidence reviewer that accompanies this Overview Report that considers the
evidence from literature submitted to NHMRC in 2011 by the Australian Homoeopathy Association,
the Australian Medical Fellowship of Homeopathy and members of the public that was not otherwise
considered in the Overview Report. The ‘Review of Submitted Literature’ identified eight Level II
studies and one Level III-2 study that were not included in the Overview Report. However, these
studies remain a self-selected sample and other literature concerning the effectiveness of
homeopathy for a specific clinical condition has not been systematically retrieved.
Due to the broad scope of the overview and the large number of clinical conditions identified, it was
not possible to separate evidence for the different types of homeopathic regimens (clinical or
individualized, practitioner-prescribed or self-prescribed) utilized in the primary studies. Details
regarding the homeopathic interventions under investigation were often lacking in the systematic
reviews. Similarly, comparators were generally not well described. Many primary studies investigated
individualised homeopathy as the intervention. Whilst individualisation of therapy allows
homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing
outcomes and determining the efficacy of specific homeopathic regimens. Importantly, information
regarding the nature of the consultation between patients and homeopaths (if any) was rarely
provided. This is important as there is evidence for the therapeutic benefits of the consultation
process on health outcomes in both conventional medicine and CAM (Brien et al 2011; Di Blasi et al
2002; Walach 2003), which draws into question the effectiveness of the homeopathic medicine per
se as opposed to the interaction between patients and homeopaths.
Finally, the systematic reviews did not discuss the use of active comparators or provide a critique of
whether or not the authors of the studies had chosen appropriate or clinically effective ‘active’
comparators. For example, homeopathy was compared with diazepam (Valium) as a treatment for
depression (Heulluy 1985 in Pilkington et al 2005), ‘standard care’ included antibiotics and nasal
sprays as a treatment of children with otitis media (Kruse 1998 in Bellavite et al 2011) and
homeopathy was compared with chloroquine for the treatment of malaria (van Erp and Brands 1996
in Linde and Melchart 1998). A discussion regarding the appropriateness of these and other active
comparators within the systematic reviews would have been beneficial in order to put the results for
homeopathy in context.
5.4 Research Gaps

A major challenge in assessing the evidence and interpreting the results for this overview has been
the paucity of good-quality primary studies that are of sufficient size to demonstrate the
effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions in humans.
If further primary research is conducted, investigators should endeavour to:
 Recruit substantially larger samples of patients and include statistical tests to demonstrate
the significance of results
 Utilise blinding/double blinding methodology and randomised assignment of subjects to
treatment groups
 Improve trial reporting and follow up (e.g. reporting of drop outs)
 Improve reporting of conflicts of interest
 Provide more detailed descriptions of interventions (including doses, dilutions), better
descriptions of outcomes and how they were measured, and better discussion of potential
confounders or bias
 Justify the use of active comparators and comment on the effectiveness of those
comparators compared to placebo
 Use a methodological approach that can differentiate between the effect of homeopathic
medicines and treatment by a homeopath (i.e. interaction at a consultation)
In addition, systematic reviewers should:

 Justify the pooling of results in meta-analyses and provide a detailed discussion of
heterogeneity between the primary studies
 Adequately and accurately report study details including treatment regimens, length of
follow up, outcomes studied and the clinical and statistical significance of results
6 Conclusion
There is a paucity of good-quality studies of sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of
homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans. The available evidence is not
compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the
reported clinical conditions in humans.

7 References
7.1 References – Systematic Reviews

7.1.1 Included reviews
Alraek T, Lee MS, Choi TY, Cao H, Liu J (2011) Complementary and alternative medicine for patients with
chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. BMC Complement Altern Med 11:87.
Altunc U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007) Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: Systematic review of
randomized clinical trials. Mayo Clin Proc 82(1):69-75.
Baranowsky J, Klose P, Musial F, Haeuser W, Dobos G, Langhorst J (2009) Qualitative systemic review of
randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine treatments in fibromyalgia.
Rheumatol Int 30(1):1-21.
Barnes J, Resch KL, Ernst E (1997) Homeopathy for postoperative ileus?: A meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol
25(4):628-33.
Bellavite P, Marzotto M, Chirumbolo S, Conforti A (2011) Advances in homeopathy and immunology: a review
of clinical research. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 3:1363-89.
Cooper KL, Relton C (2010) Homeopathy for insomnia: A systematic review of research evidence. Sleep Med
Rev 14(5):329-37.
Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP (2000) Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-
analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 56(1):27-33.
Davidson JRT, Crawford C, Ives JA, Jonas WB (2011) Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: A systematic review
of randomized placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Psychiatry 72(6):795-805.
De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, Lewith G, Macfarlane GJ (2010) Evidence for the efficacy of complementary
and alternative medicines in the management of fibromyalgia: A systematic review. Rheumatology (UK)
49(6):1063-8.
De Silva V, El-Metwally A, Ernst E, Lewith G, Macfarlane GJ (2011) Evidence for the efficacy of complementary
and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Rheumatology (UK)
50(5):911-20.
Ernst E, Barnes J (1998) Are homoeopathic remedies effective for delayed-onset muscle soreness: a systematic
review of placebo-controlled trials. Perfusion 11:4-8.
Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998) Efficacy of homeopathic Arnica: A systematic review of placebo- controlled clinical
trials. Arch Surg 133(11):1187-90.
Ernst E (2011) Homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials
and a critique of a published meta-analysis. Focus Altern Complement Ther 16(3):200-3.
Ernst E (2012) Homeopathy for eczema: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Br J Dermatol
166(6):1170-2.
Ernst E (2011) Homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders: A systematic review of randomised
controlled trials. Focus Altern Complement Ther 16(3):195-9.
Heirs M, Dean ME (2007) Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Holdcraft LC, Assefi N, Buchwald D (2003) Complementary and alternative medicine in fibromyalgia and related
syndromes. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 17(4):667-83.
Huang T, Shu X, Huang YS, Cheuk DK (2011) Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal
enuresis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD005230.

Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, Van Haselen R, Fisher P (2011) Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects
of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2).
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB (1997) Are the clinical effects of
homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 350(9081):834-43.
Linde K (1998) Erratum. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-
controlled trials. Lancet 351(9097):220.
Linde K, Melchart D (1998) Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art
review. J Altern Complement Med 4(4):371-88.
Long L, Ernst E (2001) Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Br
Homeopath J 90(1):37-43.
Loo SK, Tang WY (2009) Warts (non-genital). Clin Evid (Online) 2009.
Macfarlane GJ, El-Metwally A, De Silva V, Ernst E, Dowds GL, Moots RJ (2011) Evidence for the efficacy of
complementary and alternative medicines in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic
review. Rheumatology (UK) 50(9):1672-83.
Mathie RT, Frye J, Fisher P (2012) Homeopathic Oscillococcinum((R)) for preventing and treating influenza and
influenza-like illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD001957.
McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R (2009) Homeopathy for dementia. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev(1):CD003803.
McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ (2008) Homeopathy for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev(1):CD000353.
Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E (2006) Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer
42(3):282-9.
Mills E, Wu P, Ernst E (2005) Complementary therapies for the treatment of HIV: In search of the evidence. Int J
STD AIDS 16(6):395-402.
Myers CD, White BA, Heft MW (2002) A review of complementary and alternative medicine use for treating
chronic facial pain. J Am Dent Assoc 133(9):1189-96.
National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). The management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men. London:
Royal College of Physicians; 2010. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 97).
National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care (UK). Glaucoma: diagnosis and management of chronic open
angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care; 2009 Apr.
(NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 85).
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Borderline personality disorder: treatment and
management. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2009. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 78).
National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care (UK). Irritable bowel syndrome in adults:
diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. London: Royal College of Nursing;
2008 Feb. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 61).
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Constipation in children and young
people: diagnosis and management of idiopathic childhood constipation in primary and secondary care.
London: RCOG Press; 2010. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 99).
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Diarrhoea and Vomiting Caused by
Gastroenteritis: Diagnosis, Assessment and Management in Children Younger than 5 Years. London: RCOG
Press; 2009 Apr. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 84).
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Surgical management of otitis media
with effusion in children. London: RCOG Press; 2008 Feb. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 60).
Oladapo OT, Fawole B (2012) Treatments for suppression of lactation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Owen JM, Green BN (2004) Homeopathic treatment of headaches: a systematic review of the literature. J
Chiropr Med 3(2):45-52.

Passalacqua G, Bousquet PJ, Carlsen KH, Kemp J, Lockey RF, Niggemann B, Pawankar R, Price D, Bousquet J
(2006) ARIA update: I--Systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine for rhinitis and
asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 117(5):1054-62.
Perry R, Terry R, Ernst E (2010) A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Clin
Rheumatol 29(5):457-64.
Pilkington K, Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Fisher P, Richardson J (2006) Homeopathy for anxiety and anxiety
disorders: A systematic review of the research. Homeopathy 95(3):151-62.
Pilkington K, Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Fisher P, Richardson J (2005) Homeopathy for depression: A systematic
review of the research evidence. Homeopathy 94(3):153-63.
Porter NS, Jason LA, Boulton A, Bothne N, Coleman B (2010) Alternative medical interventions used in the
treatment and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. J
Altern Complement Med 16(3):235-49.
Quinn F, Hughes C, Baxter GD (2006). Complementary and alternative medicine in the treatment of low back
pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev 11:107-116.
Raak C, Bussing A, Gassmann G, Boehm K, Ostermann T (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the
use of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's Wort) for pain conditions in dental practice. Homeopathy
101(4):204-10.
Rada G, Capurro D, Pantoja T, Corbalan J, Moreno G, Letelier LM, Vera C (2010) Non-hormonal interventions for
hot flushes in women with a history of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD004923.
Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S (2011) Chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Evid (Online) 2011
pii:1101.
Roberts M, Brodribb W, Mitchell G (2012) Reducing the Pain: A Systematic Review of Postdischarge Analgesia
Following Elective Orthopedic Surgery. Pain Med 13(5):711-27.
Sarris J, Byrne GJ (2011) A systematic review of insomnia and complementary medicine. Sleep Med Rev
15(2):99-106.
Simonart T, Kabagabo C, De Maertelaer V (2011) Homoeopathic remedies in dermatology: A systematic review
of controlled clinical trials . Br J Dermatol 165(4):897-905.
Simonart T, De Maertelaer V (2012) Systemic treatments for cutaneous warts: A systematic review. J Dermatol
Treat 23(1):72-7.
Smith CA (2010) Homoeopathy for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4):CD003399.
Stevinson C, Ernst E (2001) Complementary/alternative therapies for premenstrual syndrome: A systematic
review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(1):227-35.
Tabbers MM, Boluyt N, Berger MY, Benninga MA (2011) Nonpharmacologic treatments for childhood
constipation: Systematic review. Pediatrics 128(4):753-61.
Turnbull N, Shaw EJ, Baker R, Dunsdon S, Costin N, Britton G, Kuntze S, Norman R (2007). Chronic fatigue
syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy): diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue
syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy) in adults and children. London: Royal College of
General Practitioners.
Vernon H, McDermaid CS, Hagino C (1999) Systematic review of randomized clinical trials of
complementary/alternative therapies in the treatment of tension-type and cervicogenic headache.
Complement Ther Med 7(3):142-55.
7.1.2 Excluded reviews

Barnes J (1998) Complementary medicine homoeopathy. Pharm J 260(6988):492-7.
Notes: Full text review. Excluded. Wrong publication type
Becker C, Gottschling S, Graf N, Ludtke R (2007) Homeopathic remedies for preventing recurrent acute
respiratory tract infections in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1).

Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, Piasere V, Benato G, Conforti A (2006) Immunology and homeopathy. 4:
Clinical studies - part 1 (Provisional abstract). Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
3:293-301.
Notes: Full text review. Excluded. Superseded publication
Benveniste J (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):367.
Bloom BS, Retbi A, Dahan S, Jonsson E (2000) Evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and
alternative medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(1):13-21.
Notes: Full text review. Excluded. Wrong intervention
Bobak M, Donald A (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):368.
Bornhoft G, Wolf U, Von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A,
Matthiessen PF (2006) Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice -
Summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementarmed 13(SUPPL. 2):19-29.
Carpenter JS, Neal JG (2005) Other complementary and alternative medicine modalities: acupuncture,
magnets, reflexology, and homeopathy. Am J Med 118 Suppl 12B:109-17.
Caulfield T, DeBow S (2008) Erratum: A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional
and CAM peer reviewed journals (BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine). BMC Complement
Altern Med 8.
Notes: Full text review. Excluded. Wrong outcomes
Centre for Public Health Excellence at NICE (UK). Obesity: the prevention, identification, assessment and
management of overweight and obesity in adults and children. London: National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence; 2006 Dec. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 43).
Coulter MK, Dean ME (2007) Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4):CD005648.
Dalacorte RR, Rigo JC, Dalacorte A (2011) Pain management in the elderly at the end of life. North Am J Med Sci
3(8):348-54.
Daniele C, Mazzanti G, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2006) Adverse event profile of Crataegus spp.: A systematic review.
Drug Saf 29(6):523-35.
Dantas F, Fisher P, Walach H, Wieland F, Rastogi DP, Teixeira H, Koster D, Jansen JP, Eizayaga J, Alvarez MEP,
Marim M, Belon P, Weckx LLM (2007) A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic
trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 96(1):4-16.
Dantas F, Rampes H (2000) Do homeopathic medicines provoke adverse effects? A systematic review. Br
Homeopath J 89(SUPPL. 1):S35-S38.
Ernst E (2002) A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 54(6):577-82.
Ernst E (1999) Classical homoeopathy versus conventional treatments: a systematic review (Structured
abstract). Perfusion 12:13-5.
Ernst E, Posadzki P, Lee MS (2011) Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for sexual dysfunction and
erectile dysfunction in older men and women: An overview of systematic reviews. Maturitas 70(1):37-41.

Ernst E, Pittler MH, Stevinson C (2002) Complementary/alternative medicine in dermatology: Evidence-

assessed efficacy of two diseases and two treatments. Am J Clin Dermatol 3(5):341-8.
Ernst E (1999) Homeopathic prophylaxis of headaches and migraine? A systematic review. J Pain Symptom
Manage 18(5):353-7.
Ernst E (2010) Homeopathy: What does the "best" evidence tell us? Med J Aust 192(8):458-60.
Ernst E, Schmidt K (2004) Homotoxicology - A review of randomised clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol
60(5):299-306.
Ernst E, Pittler MH (2000) Re-analysis of previous meta-analysis of clinical trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol
53(11):1188.
Ernst E (2003) Serious adverse effects of unconventional therapies for children and adolescents: A systematic
review of recent evidence. Eur J Pediatr 162(2):72-80.
Ernst E (2010) Systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy: Systematic reviews conclusively show that
homeopathic remedies are placebos. Focus Altern Complement Ther 15(2):107-8.
Ernst E (2000) The usage of complementary therapies by dermatological patients: A systematic review. Br J
Dermatol 142(5):857-61.
Fisher P, Berman B, Davidson J, Reilly D, Thompson T (2005) Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo
effects? Lancet 366(9503):2082-3.
Fisher P (2008) Meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 371(9617):985.
Fritts M, Crawford CC, Quibell D, Gupta A, Jonas WB, Coulter I, Andrade SA (2008) Traditional Indian medicine
and homeopathy for HIV/AIDS: a review of the literature. AIDS Res Ther 5:25.
Gagnier JJ, Van Tulder MW, Berman B, Bombardier C (2007) Herbal medicine for low back pain: A cochrane
review. Spine 32(1):82-92.
Glazener CM, Evans JH, Cheuk DK (2005) Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal
enuresis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2):CD005230.
Grabia S, Ernst E (2003) Homeopathic aggravations: A systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled
clinical trials. Homeopathy 92(2):92-8.
Gyorik SA, Brutsche MH (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine for bronchial asthma: Is there new
evidence? Curr Opin Pulm Med 10(1):37-43.
Hayes M, Buckley D, Judkins DZ, Lo V (2007) Clinical inquiries. Are any alternative therapies effective in treating
asthma? J Fam Pract 56(5):385-7.
Hoare C, Li Wan PA, Williams H (2000) Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema. Health Technol
Assess 4(37):1-191.

Hunt K, Ernst E (2011) The evidence-base for complementary medicine in children: A critical overview of
systematic reviews. Arch Dis Child 96(8):769-76.
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003) Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: Combined results
and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J 22(3):229-34.
Joos S (2011) Review on efficacy and health services research studies of complementary and alternative
medicine in inflammatory bowel disease. Chin J Integr Med 17(6):403-9.
Jorm AF, Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Parslow RA, Rodgers B, Blewitt KA (2004) Effectiveness of complementary
and self-help treatments for anxiety disorders. Med J Aust 181(7 SUPPL.):S29-S46.
Notes: Full text review. Excluded. Did not provide appraisal of primary studies (criterion 7 of AMSTAR)
Kahn MF (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):365-8.
Karkos PD, Leong SC, Arya AK, Papouliakos SM, Apostolidou MT, Issing WJ (2007) 'Complementary ENT': A
systematic review of commonly used supplements. J Laryngol Otol 121(8):779-82.
Keen D, Hadijikoumi I (2008) ADHD in children and adolescents. Clin Evid (Online) 2008.
Keen D, Hadijikoumi I (2011) ADHD in children and adolescents. Clin Evid (Online) 2011.
Koch A (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):366-7.
Kronenberg F, Fugh-Berman A (2002) Complementary and alternative medicine for menopausal symptoms: a
review of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 137(10):805-13.
Levin C, Maibach H (2002) Exploration of "alternative" and "natural" drugs in dermatology. Arch Dermatol
138(2):207-11.
Linde K, Jonas W (2005) Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 366(9503):2081-2.
Linde K, Jobst KA (2000) Homeopathy for chronic asthma . Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2):CD000353.
Linde K, Willich SN (2003) How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on
complementary medicine. J R Soc Med 96(1):17-22.
Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB (1999) Impact of study quality on outcome in
placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 52(7):631-6.
Linde K (1999) Proof of the effectiveness of homeopathic drugs. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 124(41):1221-3.
Linde K, Hondras M, Vickers A, Ter Riet G, Melchart D (2001) Systematic reviews of complementary therapies -
an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy. BMC Complement Altern Med 1:4.
Linde K (2006) Updating Systematic Reviews. Explor J Sci Heal 2(4):363-4.
Ludtke R, Rutten ALB (2008) The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of
analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 61(12):1197-204.

Maclennan AH (2009) Evidence-based review of therapies at the menopause. Int J Evid Based Healthc 7(2):112-
23.
Mascarenhas AR, Seebold JA, Cundy WJ, McGuire T, van-Driel ML (2011) Homeopathic remedies for preventing
and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Mathie RT (2003) The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature.
Homeopathy 92(2):84-91.
Mathie RT, Fisher P (2007) Homeopathy is safe and does not lack positive evidence in clinical trials. Br J Clin
Pharmacol 64(3):396-7.
Mathie RT (2010) Systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy A focused appraisal. Focus Altern Complement
Ther 15(2):104-6.
McCarney RW, Lasserson TJ, Linde K, Brinkhaus B (2004) An overview of two Cochrane systematic reviews of
complementary treatments for chronic asthma: Acupuncture and homeopathy. Respir Med 98(8):687-96.
McConeghy KW, Mikolich DJ, LaPlante KL (2009) Agents for the decolonization of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus. Pharmacotherapy 29(3):263-80.
Munar A, Gamboa OA, Ortiz NI (2007) Homeopathy for osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1).
Nai-Ming L, Yuk-Ming WT (2007) Warts (non-genital). Clin Evid (Online) 2007.
National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Nocturnal enuresis. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2010. (NICE
Clinical Guidelines, No. 111).
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Cardiff (UK):
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2009 Feb. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 81).
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and
treatment. Cardiff (UK): National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2009 Feb. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No.
80).
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK). Chronic heart failure. London: Royal College of
Physicians; 2003. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 5).
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK). Multiple sclerosis. London: Royal College of
Physicians; 2004. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 8).
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK). Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for
management and treatment in adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009 Feb. (NICE Clinical
Guidelines, No. 79).
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Generalised anxiety disorder in adults: management in
primary, secondary and community care. Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society; 2011. (NICE Clinical
Guidelines, No. 113).

National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Obsessive-compulsive disorder: core intervention in the
treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder. Leicester (UK): British
Psychological Society; 2006. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 31).
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Psychosis with coexisting substance misuse. Leicester
(UK): British Psychological Society; 2011. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 120).
National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Postnatal care: routine postnatal care of women and their
babies. London: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2006 Jul. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 37).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Antenatal care. London: Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2008 Mar. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 62).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Atopic eczema in children. London:
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2007 Dec. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 57).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Caesarean section. London: Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2011 Nov. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 132).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Fertility: assessment and treatment for
people with fertility problems. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2004 Feb.
(NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 11).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Induction of labour. London: Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2008 Jul. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 70). Notes: Full
text review. Excluded. Wrong publication type
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Intrapartum care: care of healthy
women and their babies during childbirth. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Press; 2007 Sept. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 55).
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Neonatal jaundice. London: Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2010 May. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 98).
Paterson C (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):365-6.
Peckham EJ, -Nelson-E-Andrea, Greenhalgh J, Cooper K, Roberts ER, Agrawal A (2012) Homeopathy for
treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Pilkington K (2007) Searching for CAM evidence: An evaluation of therapy-specific search strategies. J Altern
Complement Med 13(4):451-9.
Pittler MH, Ernst E (2005) Complementary therapies for reducing body weight: A systematic review. Int J Obes
29(9):1030-8.
Posadzki P, Alotaibi A, Ernst E (2012) Adverse effects of homeopathy: A systematic review of published case
reports and case series. Int J Clin Pract 66(12):1178-88.
Posadzki P, Lee MS, Ernst E (2012) Complementary and alternative medicine for diabetes mellitus: An overview
of systematic reviews. Focus Altern Complement Ther 17(3):142-8.

Rao AM, Fitzgerald-James EF, Ahmed I (2011) Role of homeopathic medicines in prevention and treatment of
paralytic ileus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Reid SF, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S (2008) Chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Evid (Online) 2008.
Reznik M, Ozuah PO (2005) CAM in the treatment of paediatric asthma. Focus Altern Complement Ther
10(3):177-80.
Robinson L, Hutchings D, Dickinson HO, Corner L, Beyer F, Finch T, Hughes J, Vanoli A, Ballard C, Bond J (2007)
Effectiveness and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce wandering in dementia: A
systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 22(1):9-22.
Rodriguez-Caballero A, Torres-Lagares D, Robles-Garcia M, Pachon-Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Padilla D, Gutierrez-Perez
JL (2012) Cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41(2):225-
38.
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF (2008) The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data.
Homeopathy 97(4):169-77.
Sarris J, Moylan S, Camfield DA, Pase MP, Mischoulon D, Berk M, Jacka FN, Schweitzer I (2012) Complementary
medicine, exercise, meditation, diet, and lifestyle modification for anxiety disorders: A review of current
evidence. Evid -Based Complement Altern Med 2012.
Schafer T (2010) Complementary alternative medicine (CAM) and atopic eczema. Allergologie 33(4):180-9.
Schneider B, Klein P, Weiser M (2005) Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared
with usual treatments: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Arzneim -Forsch Drug Res 55(1):23-9.
Searight HR, Robertson K, Smith T, Searight BK (2011) A qualitative systematic review of complementary and
alternative therapies for childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Botanicals, diet, minerals, and
homeopathy. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 13(4):798-803.
Seidl MM, Stewart DE (1998) Alternative treatments for menopausal symptoms. Systematic review of scientific
and lay literature. Can Fam Physician 44:1299-308.
Semple MG, Smyth RL (2003) Update on Cochrane data on paediatric respiratory diseases. Paediatr Respir Rev
4(3):250-66.
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005) Are the clinical
effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy
and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32.
Shekelle PG, Takata G, Newberry SJ, Coker T, Limbos M, Chan LS, Timmer M, Suttorp M, Carter J, Motala A,
Valentine D, Johnsen B, Shanman R. Management of Acute Otitis Media: Update. Evidence
Report/Technology Assessment No. 198. (Prepared by the RAND Evidence-Based Practice Center under
Contract No. 290 2007 10056 I). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. November
2010.
Sherr J, Quirk T (2007) Systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials: an excess of rigour? Homeopathy
96(4):273-5.

Soeken KL (2004) Selected CAM Therapies for Arthritis-Related Pain: The Evidence from Systematic Reviews.
Clin J Pain 20(1):13-8.
Steurer-Stey C, Russi EW, Steurer J (2002) Complementary and alternative medicine in asthma: do they work?
Swiss Med Wkly 132(25-26):338-44.
Strauss JL, Coeytaux R, McDuffie J, Nagi A, Williams JW Jr. Efficacy of Complementary and Alternative Therapies
for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. VA-ESP Project #09-010; 2011.
Struijs P, Kerkhoffs G (2007) Ankle sprain. Clin Evid (Online) 2007.
Struijs PA, Kerkhoffs GM (2010) Ankle sprain. Clin Evid (Online) 2010.
Stub T, Musial F, Alraek T (2012) Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review. BMC
Complement Altern Med 12.
Terry R, Perry R, Ernst E (2012) An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine
for fibromyalgia. Clin Rheumatol 31(1):55-66.
Thachil AF, Mohan R, Bhugra D (2007) The evidence base of complementary and alternative therapies in
depression. J Affect Disord 97(1-3):23-35.
Ullman D (2003) Controlled clinical trials evaluating the homeopathic treatment of people with human
immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. J Altern Complement Med 9(1):133-41.
Vallance AK, Jobst KA (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet 351(9099):366-8.
Van Den Biggelaar FJHM, Smolders J, Jansen JFA (2010) Complementary and alternative medicine in alopecia
areata. Am J Clin Dermatol 11(1):11-20.
van der Wouden JC, Menke J, Gajadin S, Koning S, Tasche MJ, van Suijlekom-Smit LW, Berger MY, Butler CC
(2006) Interventions for cutaneous molluscum contagiosum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2):CD004767.
van der Wouden JC, van der Sande R, van Suijlekom-Smit LW, Berger M, Butler C, Koning S (2009) Interventions
for cutaneous molluscum contagiosum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4):CD004767.
Van Wijk R (2007) The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies-A systematic review of the
literature. Complement Ther Med 15(2):139-41.
Vickers AJ, Smith C (2000) Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-
like syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2):CD001957.
like syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1):CD001957.
like syndromes (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev(3).

Walach H (2002) Homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis - No evidence for its superiority to placebo. Forsch
Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 9(6):363-5.
Warren Z, Veenstra-VanderWeele J, Stone W, Bruzek JL, Nahmias AS, Foss-Feig JH, Jerome RN, Krishnaswami S,
Sathe NA, Glasser AM, Surawicz T, McPheeters ML. Therapies for Children With Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 26. (Prepared by the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice
Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10065-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC029-EF. Rockville, MD:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2011. Available at:
www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
Weiner DK, Ernst E (2004) Complementary and alternative approaches to the treatment of persistent
musculoskeletal pain. Clin J Pain 20(4):244-55.
Whitlock EP, O’Connor EA, Williams SB, Beil TL, Lutz KW. Effectiveness of Primary Care Interventions for Weight
Management in Children and Adolescents: An Updated, Targeted Systematic Review for the USPSTF.
Evidence synthesis No. 76. AHRQ Publication No. 10-05144-EF-1. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, January 2010.
Wiesenauer ML, Ludtke R (2000) A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia
glauca. Br Homeopath J 89(SUPPL. 1):S52.
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TER, Baumgartner S, Willich SN (2007) The in vitro evidence for an
effect of high homeopathic potencies-A systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med
15(2):128-38.
Yaju Y, Kataoka Y, Eto H, Horiuchi S, Mori R (2011) Prophylactic interventions after delivery of placenta for
reducing bleeding during the postnatal period. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
Zochling J (2004) Complementary and alternative medicines and arthritis. Med Today 5(9):63-6.
7.1.3 Studies not published in English

Bonard EC (1999) [Homeopathy]. Rev Med Suisse Romande 119(1):83-6.
Ernst E (1997) [For an evidence-based complementary medicine]. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 148(7):472-6.
Heine H (2008) Are homeopathic preparations of Rhus toxicodendron L. (Toxicodendron quercifolium Greene)
suitable for adjuvant tumor therapy? A systematic review. Schweiz Z GanzheitsMed 20(1):35-40.
Langhorst J, Hauser W, Irnich D, Speeck N, Felde E, Winkelmann A, Lucius H, Michalsen A, Musial F (2008)
Alternative and complementary therapies in fibromyalgia syndrome. Schmerz 22(3):324-33.
Ludtke R, Wiesenauer M (1997) A meta-analysis of homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca.
Wien Med Wochenschr 147(14):323-7.
Ludtke R, Hacke D (2005) On the effectiveness of the homeopathic remedy Arnica montana. Wien Med
Wochenschr 155(21-22):482-90.
Scheen AJ (1997) Can positive results from a meta-analysis provide legitimacy for homeopathy? REV MED LIEGE
52(11):694-7.
Strubelt O, Claussen M (1999) On evaluating the efficacy of homoeopathic medications. Deutsche Medizinische
Wochenschrift 124(9):261-6.
Winer N (2011) [Different methods for the induction of labour in postterm pregnancy]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol
Reprod (Paris) 40(8):796-811.
Zimmer U (2005) Treatment of vertigo with Vertigoheel(R) - A meta-analysis. Biol Med 34(2):89.

7.2 References – Other

Barnes J, Resch KL, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus?: A meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol
25(4):628-33.
Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P, eds (2012). Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety,
Costs: An HTA report on homeopathy as part of the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation
Programme. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Brien S, Lachance L, Prescott P, McDermott C, Lewith G (2011). Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid
arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a
randomized controlled clinical trial. Rheumatology 50:1070-1082.
British Homeopathic Association (2010). The Science & Technology Select Committee Evidence Check on
Homeopathy: British Homeopathic Association response to report. Available at:
http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/export/sites/faculty_site/ST_parts_1-6.pdf.
Colquhoun D (1990). Re-analysis of clinical treatment of homeopathic treatment in fibrositis. Lancet 336:441-2.
Davidson JRT, Crawford C, Ives JA, Jonas WB (2011). Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: A systematic
review of randomized placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Psychiatry 72(6):795-805.
Di Basi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen J (2002). Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a
systematic review. Lancet 357:757.
Ernst E, Barnes J (1998). Are homoeopathic remedies effective for delayed-onset muscle soreness: a systematic
review of placebo-controlled trials (Structured abstract). Perfusion 11:4-8.
GRADE Working Group (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical
Journal 328(7454):1490.
Higgins JPT, Green S, (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0
[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2009). Evidence check 2: Homeopathy. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB (1997). Are the clinical effects of
homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 350(9081):834-43.
Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R (2009). Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment:
revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’ BMC Medical Research Methodology 9:34
NHMRC (2000). How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. National Health
and Medical Research Council, Canberra ACT. Available at:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/cp69.pdf
NHMRC (2007). Standards and procedures for externally developed guidelines. National Health and Medical
Research Council, Canberra ACT. Available at:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/nh56.pdf
NHMRC (2009). NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of
guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra ACT. Available at:
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120
423.pdf
Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005) Are the clinical
effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy
and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32.
Shaw D (2012). The Swiss report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly
142:w13594.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM
(2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7:10.
Walach H (2003). Placebo and placebo effects – a concise review. Focus Altern Complement Ther 8:178-187.
World Health Organization (2009). Safety issues in the preparation of homeopathic medicines. WHO Press,
Geneva.

Effectiveness of Homeopathy For Clinical Conditions - Evaluation of The Evidence PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectiveness of Homeopathy For Clinical Conditions - Evaluation of The Evidence PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectiveness of Homeopathy For Clinical Conditions - Evaluation of The Evidence PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What conditions were examined in the systematic reviews?

What conditions were examined in the systematic reviews?

What interventions were examined in the systematic reviews?

What interventions were examined in the systematic reviews?

Effectiveness of Homeopathy for

Prepared for the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee

3.1.1 Description of conditions examined .................................................................................................. 13

3.1.2 Description of the interventions examined ....................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Description of the comparators examined ........................................................................................ 14

3.1.4 Description of the outcomes examined ............................................................................................. 14

3.2 Literature searches ............................................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Study eligibility .................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Data extraction .................................................................................................................................................. 17

3.5 Critical appraisal ................................................................................................................................................ 17

3.6 Assessment of the body of evidence ................................................................................................................. 18

3.6.1 Evidence summaries .......................................................................................................................... 18

3.6.2 Development of evidence statements ............................................................................................... 19

3.7 Independent methodological review ................................................................................................................ 19

3.8 Changes from the research protocol ................................................................................................................. 20

4 Results of the overview ............................................................................................ 22

4.2.1 Bellavite et al (2011) .......................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Davidson et al (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.3 Simonart et al (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.4 Altunc et al (2007) .............................................................................................................................. 27

4.2.5 Cucherat et al (2000) ......................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.6 Ernst and Pittler (1998) ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.7 Linde and Melchart (1998) ................................................................................................................. 28

4.2.8 Linde et al (1997) ............................................................................................................................... 28

4.4 Eye, ear and labyrinth disorders ........................................................................................................................ 29

4.4.1 Children with otitis media .................................................................................................................. 29

4.4.2 Glaucoma ........................................................................................................................................... 35

4.5 Gastrointestinal disorders ................................................................................................................................. 35

Prepared for the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee by Optum 2

4.5.1 Children with constipation ................................................................................................................. 35

4.5.2 Children with diarrhoea ..................................................................................................................... 36

4.5.3 Irritable bowel syndrome ................................................................................................................... 43

4.5.4 Postoperative ileus ............................................................................................................................ 45

4.5.5 Proctocolitis ....................................................................................................................................... 52

4.6 Genitourinary disorders..................................................................................................................................... 54

4.6.1 Nocturnal enuresis ............................................................................................................................. 54

4.6.2 Men with lower urinary tract symptoms ........................................................................................... 54

4.7 Infections and infestations ................................................................................................................................ 55

4.7.1 Amebiasis and giardiasis .................................................................................................................... 55

4.7.2 Cholera ............................................................................................................................................... 57

4.7.3 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) ............................................................................................... 59

4.7.4 Influenza-like illness ........................................................................................................................... 61

4.7.5 Malaria ............................................................................................................................................... 69

4.7.6 Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis .................................................................................................... 71

4.8 Injury, trauma and postoperative disorders ...................................................................................................... 73

4.8.1 Acute ankle sprains ............................................................................................................................ 73

4.8.2 Acute trauma ..................................................................................................................................... 75

4.8.3 Mild traumatic brain injury ................................................................................................................ 77

4.8.4 Postoperative pain-agitation syndrome............................................................................................. 79

4.9 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders ............................................................................................. 82

4.9.1 Ankylosing spondylitis ........................................................................................................................ 82

4.9.2 Chronic polyarthritis .......................................................................................................................... 84

4.9.3 Delayed-onset muscle soreness ......................................................................................................... 86

4.9.4 Fibromyalgia ...................................................................................................................................... 92

4.9.5 Knee joint haematoma..................................................................................................................... 104