| Homeopathic research |
 |
| Clinical research |
Meta-analyses are rigorous studies that involve
scores of clinical trials and aim to assess the quality of
the studies that have been carried out and the consistency
of the results.
In less than one decade, the conclusions from meta-analyses
involving homeopathy have convinced their authors of the acceptability
of homeopathic clinical trials and their positive results.
Trial methods with recognised reliability
In 1991, a meta-analysis was published which involved the
meticulous study of 107 trials1
. As regards methods used for the clinical evaluation, the
conclusion was clear: “it
is wrong to say that homeopathy has not been evaluated according
to the modern method of controlled trials”. Among
these clinical trials, a large majority (81 to be exact) has
had positive results concerning
the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
Ruling out the notions of chance and the
placebo effect
A similar study was conducted in 1996 at the European Parliament's
request2
. It examined the data from trials involving the efficacy
of homeopathic medicines in relation to a placebo or to no
treatment. Comparisons were retained satisfying all of the
experts' requirements, who finally concluded that “the
number of significant results was clearly not down to chance”.
A year later (1997), a study involving the analysis of 89
trials was published3
taking close account of the criteria specific to the homeopathic
therapeutic method. It concluded that even if evidence of
the complete efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of a
single given patient were insufficient,
“it was impossible that the clinical effects of the
homeopathy were exclusively caused by a placebo effect”.
In August 2005, the weekly journal The Lancet published a new study4 on the effectiveness of homeopathy. In its editorial the journal drew some surprisingly controversial and unfavourable conclusions on homeopathy. It concerns an analysis which like the 3 previous meta-analyses concludes that homeopathic medicine is effective. However, to arrive at the opposite conclusion, the authors implicitly removed series of trials afterwards, retaining just 14 (8 on homeopathy) of the 220 initial trials (110 of which were on homeopathic medicine). In December 20055, The Lancet printed 4 letters from researches in response to this publication. The conclusions are that: 19% of the homeopathic trials and 8% of the allopathic trials are of the best quality; the 110 trials on homeopathic medicine show a positive treatment effect in relation to a placebo which is absolutely comparable to that shown by the trials on conventional medicines.
These meta-analyses highlight the perfectibility of the research
conducted in homeopathy and the necessity of rigorously and
systematically pursuing them. But they also show that the
reliability of the testing to which homeopathy is already
subjected is beyond doubt.
 |
More : Meta-analyses:
p.11-15
(extract from the book "La recherche en homéopathie",
coordination Doctor Philippe Belon, 2004) |
|
