survivors the quest tropical forest moss

A meta-analysis of such RCTs (including those with crossover design, which we excluded-see ‘Methods’) was published in 1998, using methods that predated the current rigorous standards for conducting risk-of-bias assessments and sensitivity analysis: it reported a significant overall treatment effect that marginally was not sustained for the best-quality trials.

For a placebo-controlled trial of individualised homeopathy, conclusions about ‘efficacy’ (specific effects) apply potentially to each or just some of the homeopathic medicines prescribed to the individual participants in that trial. There are important differences between these therapeutic approaches, especially that individualised homeopathy typically involves a long interview between the practitioner and the patient, whereas the other three forms (non-individualised homeopathy) do not. In their overarching approaches, however, each of these five reviews has assessed together the RCT findings of all forms of homeopathy (individualised homeopathy, clinical homeopathy, complex homeopathy, isopathy) as if they are the same intervention. įour of the above reviews have distinguished RCTs of individualised homeopathy, either by mere identification or in formal sub-group analysis. By contrast, the most recent global systematic review, by Shang et al., concluded there was “weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies…compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects”. There is a need to temper these divergent opinions by considering the existing RCT evidence from an objective, rigorous and transparent assessment of the research, reflecting its particular nature and intrinsic methodological quality.įive systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo. Homeopathy’s advocates tend to deny the worth of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or over-interpret their findings, whilst its critics dispute the therapy’s scientific rationale and the existence of any positive findings in the research literature.

The nature of the research evidence in homeopathy is a matter of ongoing scientific debate.

Survivors the quest tropical forest moss