Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.


BACKGROUND: 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.





Published Version (Please cite this version)


Publication Info

Mathie, Robert T, Michel Van Wassenhoven, Jennifer Jacobs, Menachem Oberbaum, Joyce Frye, Raj K Manchanda, Helmut Roniger, Flávio Dantas, et al. (2016). Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment. Complement Ther Med, 25. pp. 120–125. 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.01.005 Retrieved from

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.


Jonathan R.T. Davidson

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Currently, my research focuses upon the theoretical aspects of homeopathy and its clinical utilization, as well as the broader field of alternative (complementary) medicine. this is a field which has traditionally been overlooked as a legitimate scientific discipline. Other areas of activity are as in the past, i.e., clinical treatment, epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis of posttraumatic stress, social phobia, other anxiety status, and depression. These are illustrated by recent publications on treatment, epidemiology, health service utilization and quality of life in social phobia and PTSD, drug treatment of panic disorder. Magnetic resonance studies of social phobia have been completed and further studies are planned.

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.