Volume 104, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 3–8
Original paper
Veterinary homeopathy: meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials
Highlights
- •
- We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
- •
- We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of veterinary homeopathic intervention is distinguishable from that of placebos.
- •
- For 15 eligible RCTs with extractable data, pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.56]; P = 0.01.
- •
- Nine of the 15 RCTs displayed high risk of bias; only two comprised reliable evidence.
- •
- For the two RCTs with reliable evidence, OR = 2.62 [95% CI, 1.13 to 6.05]; P = 0.02).
- •
- There is some very limited evidence that homeopathic intervention in animals is distinguishable from that of placebos.
- •
- The deficient quality of the evidence hinders a more decisive conclusion.
Background
Meta-analysis
of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy has not
previously been undertaken. For all medical conditions and species
collectively, we tested the hypothesis that the outcome of homeopathic
intervention (treatment and/or prophylaxis, individualised and/or
non-individualised) is distinguishable from corresponding intervention
using placebos.
Methods
All
facets of the review, including literature search strategy, study
eligibility, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, were
described in an earlier paper. A trial was judged to comprise reliable
evidence if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specific domains
of assessment. Effect size was reported as odds ratio (OR). A trial was
judged free of vested interest if it was not funded by a homeopathic
pharmacy. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model,
with hypothesis-driven sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias.
Results
Nine
of 15 trials with extractable data displayed high risk of bias; low or
unclear risk of bias was attributed to each of the remaining six trials,
only two of which comprised reliable evidence without overt vested
interest. For all N = 15 trials, pooled OR = 1.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.56]; P = 0.01. For the N = 2 trials with suitably reliable evidence, pooled OR = 2.62 [95% CI, 1.13 to 6.05]; P = 0.02).
Conclusions
Meta-analysis
provides some very limited evidence that clinical intervention in
animals using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from
corresponding intervention using placebos. The low number and quality of
the trials hinders a more decisive conclusion.
Keywords
- Veterinary homeopathy;
- Randomised controlled trials;
- Placebo control;
- Systematic review;
- Meta-analysis
Copyright © 2014 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
