There is some evidence that individualised homeopathic intervention is more effective than placebo, report could have concluded

Homeopathy is not an effective treatment for any health condition, report concludes

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1478 (Published 16 March 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h1478

 http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1478/rr-13

 

There is some evidence that individualised homeopathic intervention is more effective than placebo, report could have concluded

As recognised by Dana Ullman elsewhere in these Comments, the timing of the Australian NHMRC report’s publication prevented its consideration of a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in individualised homeopathic treatment, published in December 2014 [1]. Using the NHMRC’s own description of an evidence base, dated 2013 [2], it is reasonable to expect that the new paper’s evidence, if available in the timeframe, would have been judged as: ‘A small body of good-quality evidence has been appropriately meta-analysed and found a significant difference in favour of homeopathy’. The NHMRC’s conclusion about individualised homeopathy would therefore properly have been: ‘Based on the body of evidence evaluated in this review, there is some evidence that homeopathy is more effective than placebo’.
The recent meta-analysis paper’s own main conclusion was: ‘Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects’. This conclusion, reflecting evidence in individualised homeopathy across a broad spectrum of medical conditions, transcends the condition-specific analysis that is the essence of the NHMRC report. Thus, while the evidence in homeopathy for any given medical condition is currently deficient, there is [to borrow the NHMRC’s vocabulary] some evidence that individualised homeopathic intervention is more effective than placebo.
This up-to-date perspective on homeopathy’s clinical research evidence must be brought firmly into the consideration of homeopathy’s role in NHS healthcare. Its practitioners employ individualised homeopathy for the majority of their patients; they thereby treat the person as a whole, including a specified medical condition or conditions.
References:
1. Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JRT, Ford I. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews 2014; 3: 142.
2. NHMRC. Effectiveness of homeopathy for clinical conditions: overview report. Appendix C: Criteria for development of evidence statements; 2013: p279.

Competing interests: The writer is employed by the British Homeopathic Association with the key aim of clarifying and extending an evidence base in homeopathy. Along with colleagues from within and outwith homeopathy, including statisticians at the University of Glasgow, he is the first author of the cited meta-analysis paper herein. In their write-up of that paper, all authors applied the normal high standards of scientific method in the conduct of the work and of complete and transparent reporting.