The Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) is a bibliography of publications that report on methods used in the conduct of controlled trials. It includes journal articles, books, and conference proceedings, and the content is sourced from MEDLINE and hand searches. CMR contains studies of methods used in reviews and more general methodological studies that could be relevant to anyone preparing systematic reviews. CMR records contain the title of the article, information on where it was published (bibliographic details), and, in some cases, a summary of the article. They do not contain the full text of the article.
The CMR was produced by the Cochrane UK, until 31st May 2012. There are currently no plans to reinstate the CMR and it is not receiving updates.* If you have any queries, please contact the Cochrane Community Service Team (support@cochrane.org).
The Publishers, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, thanks Update Software for the continued use of their data formats in the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR).
*Last update in January 2019.
| Title | Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. |
| Authors | Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB |
| Source | Lancet |
| Date of publication | 1997 |
| Volume | 350 |
| Issue | 9081 |
| Pages | 834-843 |
| Abstract | [published erratum appears in Lancet 1998 Jan 17;351(9097):220] BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double- blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta- analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good- quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (- 0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: 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. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic |
| CMR keywords | CMRA1;B1;C6;C15;CMR: Evaluation methodology - bias in trials - blinding - placebo effects;CMRA3 |
| Correspondence address | Comment in: Lancet 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):824, 825; Comment in: Lancet 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):365-366; discussion 367-368; Erratum in: Lancet 1998 351(9097):220 |
| Reference type | Journal article |