Browsing by Subject "Homeopathy"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled studies.(J Clin Psychiatry, 2011-06) Davidson, Jonathan RT; Crawford, Cindy; Ives, John A; Jonas, Wayne BOBJECTIVE: To systematically review placebo-controlled randomized trials of homeopathy for psychiatric conditions. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were identified using the following databases from database inception to April 2010: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Hom-Inform, Cochrane CENTRAL, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grantee publications database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Gray literature was also searched using Google, Google Scholar, the European Committee for Homeopathy, inquiries with homeopathic experts and manufacturers, and the bibliographic lists of included published studies and reviews. Search terms were as follows: (homeopath* or homoeopath*) and (placebo or sham) and (anxiety or panic or phobia or post-traumatic stress or PTSD or obsessive-compulsive disorder or fear or depress* or dysthym* or attention deficit hyperactivity or premenstrual syndrome or premenstrual disorder or premenstrual dysphoric disorder or traumatic brain injury or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalitis or insomnia or sleep disturbance). Searches included only English-language literature that reported randomized controlled trials in humans. STUDY SELECTION: Trials were included if they met 7 criteria and were assessed for possible bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 50 guidelines. Overall assessments were made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation procedure. Identified studies were grouped into anxiety or stress, sleep or circadian rhythm complaints, premenstrual problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, and functional somatic syndromes. RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible studies were identified from an initial pool of 1,431. Study quality according to SIGN 50 criteria varied, with 6 assessed as good, 9 as fair, and 10 as poor. Outcome was unrelated to SIGN quality. Effect size could be calculated in 16 studies, and number needed to treat, in 10 studies. Efficacy was found for the functional somatic syndromes group (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome), but not for anxiety or stress. For other disorders, homeopathy produced mixed effects. No placebo-controlled studies of depression were identified. Meaningful safety data were lacking in the reports, but the superficial findings suggested good tolerability of homeopathy. A funnel plot in 13 studies did not support publication bias (χ(2)(1) = 1.923, P = .166). CONCLUSIONS: The database on studies of homeopathy and placebo in psychiatry is very limited, but results do not preclude the possibility of some benefit.Item Open Access Individualized Homeopathy: A Consideration of Its Relationship to Psychotherapy.(Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2016-08) Davidson, Jonathan; Jonas, WayneObjectives
The benefit and potential mechanisms of action of homeopathy have long been debated. Almost entirely neglected has been the study of individualized homeopathy (IH) as a form of psychotherapy, which incorporates factors that are common to most therapies while using processes that are specific to IH.Methods
Recent research into the therapeutic components of IH is reviewed; similarities and differences between IH and other forms of psychotherapy are also described.Results
IH includes elements found in humanistic therapy and narrative medicine and additionally incorporates idiographic material in treatment selection. It is structured in a manner that takes maximum advantage of the components of the placebo effect, which could further expand its effectiveness beyond those conditions thought usually amenable to psychotherapy.Conclusions
It is possible that IH entails specific psychotherapeutic processes in addition to possible therapeutic action of the homeopathic remedy, but the relative contributions of each remain to be determined. Suggestions are given for future research.Item Open Access Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.(Complement Ther Med, 2016-04) Mathie, Robert T; Van Wassenhoven, Michel; Jacobs, Jennifer; Oberbaum, Menachem; Frye, Joyce; Manchanda, Raj K; Roniger, Helmut; Dantas, Flávio; Legg, Lynn A; Clausen, Jürgen; Moss, Sian; Davidson, Jonathan RT; Lloyd, Suzanne M; Ford, Ian; Fisher, PeterBACKGROUND: To date, our programme of systematic reviews has assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathy separately for risk of bias (RoB) and for model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present paper was to bring together our published RoB and MVHT findings and, using an approach based on GRADE methods, to merge the quality appraisals of these same RCTs, examining the impact on meta-analysis results. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: As previously, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were the subject of study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, the separate ratings for RoB and MVHT were merged to obtain a single overall quality designation ('high', 'moderate, "low", 'very low'), based on the GRADE principle of 'downgrading'. RESULTS: Merging the assessment of MVHT and RoB identified three trials of 'high quality', eight of 'moderate quality', 18 of 'low quality' and three of 'very low quality'. There was no association between a trial's MVHT and its RoB or its direction of treatment effect (P>0.05). The three 'high quality' trials were those already labelled 'reliable evidence' based on RoB, and so no change was found in meta-analysis based on best-quality evidence: a small, statistically significant, effect favouring homeopathy. CONCLUSION: Accommodating MVHT in overall quality designation of RCTs has not modified our pre-existing conclusion that the medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific, treatment effects.Item Open Access Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.(Systematic reviews, 2014-12) Mathie, Robert T; Lloyd, Suzanne M; Legg, Lynn A; Clausen, Jürgen; Moss, Sian; Davidson, Jonathan RT; Ford, IanBackground
A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos.Methods
The review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy.Results
Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38).Conclusions
Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.Item Open Access Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.(Systematic reviews, 2017-03) Mathie, Robert T; Ramparsad, Nitish; Legg, Lynn A; Clausen, Jürgen; Moss, Sian; Davidson, Jonathan RT; Messow, Claudia-Martina; McConnachie, AlexBackground
A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.Methods
Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.Results
Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.Conclusions
The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.Item Open Access Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Other-than-Placebo Controlled, Trials of Individualised Homeopathic Treatment.(Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy, 2018-11) Mathie, Robert T; Ulbrich-Zürni, Susanne; Viksveen, Petter; Roberts, E Rachel; Baitson, Elizabeth S; Legg, Lynn A; Davidson, Jonathan RTBACKGROUND: This study focuses on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment (IHT) in which the control (comparator) group was other than placebo (OTP). AIMS: To determine the comparative effectiveness of IHT on health-related outcomes in adults and children for any clinical condition that has been the subject of at least one OTP-controlled trial. For each study, to assess the risk of bias and to determine whether its study attitude was predominantly 'pragmatic' or 'explanatory'. METHODS: Systematic review. For each eligible trial, published in the peer-reviewed literature up to the end of 2015, we assessed its risk of bias (internal validity) using the seven-domain Cochrane tool, and its relative pragmatic or explanatory attitude (external validity) using the 10-domain PRECIS tool. We grouped RCTs by whether they examined IHT as an alternative treatment (study design Ia), adjunctively with another intervention (design Ib), or compared with a no-intervention group (design II). For each RCT, we identified a 'main outcome measure' to use in meta-analysis: 'relative effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR; values >1 favouring homeopathy) or standardised mean difference (SMD; values < 0 favouring homeopathy). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, representing 11 different medical conditions, were eligible for study. Five of the RCTs (four of which in design Ib) were judged to have pragmatic study attitude, two were explanatory, and four were equally pragmatic and explanatory. Ten trials were rated 'high risk of bias' overall: one of these, a pragmatic study with design Ib, had high risk of bias solely regarding participant blinding (a bias that is intrinsic to such trials); the other trial was rated 'uncertain risk of bias' overall. Eight trials had data that were extractable for analysis: for four heterogeneous trials with design Ia, the pooled OR was statistically non-significant; collectively for three clinically heterogeneous trials with design Ib, there was a statistically significant SMD favouring adjunctive IHT; in the remaining trial of design 1a, IHT was non-inferior to fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality, the small number and the heterogeneity of studies, the current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of IHT. Generalisability of findings is limited by the variable external validity identified overall; the most pragmatic study attitude was associated with RCTs of adjunctive IHT. Future OTP-controlled trials in homeopathy should aim, as far as possible, to promote both internal validity and external validity.Item Open Access The Wesselhoefts: A medical dynasty from the age of Goethe to the era of nuclear medicine.(Journal of medical biography, 2017-11) Davidson, Jonathan RtFor six generations, members of the Wesselhoeft family have practiced medicine in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada and/or the USA. In the early decades of the 19th century, two Wesselhoeft brothers left Europe to eventually settle in New England, where they and their progeny gave rise to a regional medical dynasty. The Wesselhoeft doctors became well-known practitioners of homeopathy, hydropathy, conventional medicine and surgery, in academic and general clinical settings. An additional connection was established to the literary worlds of Germany and the USA, either through friendships or as personal physicians.