D. Reilly, M. Taylor, C. McSherry,
Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency with Pollen in Hayfever as Model,
Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.
The double-blind study compared a high dilution homeopathic preparation of grass pollens against a placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever. The study method considered pollen counts, aggravation in symptoms and use of antihistamines and concluded that patients using homeopathy showed greater improvement in symptoms than those on placebo, and that this difference was reflected in a significantly reduced need for antihistamines among the homeopathically treated group. The results confirmed those of the pilot study and demonstrate that homeopathic potencies show effects distinct from those of the placebo
P. Fisher, A. Greenwood, E.C. Huskisson, et al.,
Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis
British Medical Journal, August 5, 1989, 299:365-66.
This trial was double-blind with a crossover design, comparing R toxicodendron to a placebo in 30 patients all suffering from an identical syndrome identified as the admission criteria. It showed a significant reduction in tender spots, by 25%, when patients were given the homeopathic medicine, as compared to when they were given the placebo.
Treatment of influenza
Ferley's controlled trial (Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D'Adhemar D, Balducci F. A controlled evaluation of a homoeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndrome. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1989; 3: 329-35) looked at the effectiveness of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
The researchers say that while a regular feature of homeopathic treatment is that two patients who have the same disease are liable not to benefit from the same treatment, there is a school of thought that certain diseases, especially some acute conditions, could be treated with substances or drug mixtures tailored to the disease characteristics alone. They add that such drugs are gaining popularity among large sections of the medical profession and also among the public who buy them over the counter.
Oscillococcinum - made of Anas Barbariae Hepatis and Cordis Extractum HPUS 200 C - is such a drug. The vehicle is made of lactose and saccharose and a placebo of identical appearance was made up consisting of lactose and saccharose alone. The study took place during an influenza epidemic. Patients who took part in the study were chosen from those attending GP surgeries with influenza-like syndromes, defined as a rectal temperature equal to or above 38° C or above and at least two of the following symptoms: headache, stiffness, lumbar and articular pain, shivers. Most of the participating GPs were not homeopathic clinicians.
The standard treatment is five doses of Oscillococcinum. The first was given at the medical practice and the patients took the remaining four on the following mornings and evenings. 237 patients received the test drug and 241 the placebo. They recorded their rectal temperature twice a day and the presence or absence of five cardinal symptoms (headache, stiffness, lumbar and articular pain, shivers) as well as cough, coryza and fatigue. Recovery was defined as a rectal temperature of less than 37.5° C and complete resolution of the cardinal symptoms.
The results showed that the proportion of patients who recovered within 48 hours of treatment was greater among the drug group than among the placebo group: 17.1% compared with 10.3% (P = 0.03).
The researchers say that the positive effect of the homeopathic preparation 'cannot be explained in our present state of knowledge' and they call for further investigation.
A repeat trial conducted by Papp et al was recently published in the British Homeopathic Journal (1998- 87). This showed that the symptoms of patients receiving Oscillococcinum were significantly milder (P = 0.023) after 48 hours than patients in the placebo group. The number of patients with no symptoms was significantly higher in the group receiving Oscillococcinum from the second day onwards (verum 17.4%, placebo 6.6%) until the end of the patients' recording.
E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, and K.L. Resch,
Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomized Placebo-controlled, Double-Blind Trial,
Phlebology, 1990, 5:157-163.
This study of 61 patients showed a 44% improvement in venous filling time in the homeopathic treated group when compared with placebo.
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea
(Jacobs J, Jimenez M, Gloyd S et al. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea with homoeopathic medicine: a randomised clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 719-725.)
Jacobs' work set out to discover whether homeopathic treatment was useful in the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children, the leading cause of paediatric morbidity and mortality.
This randomised double-blind trial took place in two clinics in poor districts of Nicaragua, a country where diarrhoea is the primary cause of mortality during the first year of life and accounts for 19% of all outpatient consultations in children aged from one to four years.
The researchers thought that acute childhood diarrhoea was an ideal condition for a homeopathic study because the short duration of illness would allow for intensive follow up, there was no standard allopathic treatment that would have to be withheld during the trial and the public health importance was great.
Eighty-one children aged between six months and five years took part. An initial history was taken for each child, a physical examination was carried out, a stool specimen obtained and a diarrhoea index score was assigned to each child. Children with type A or B dehydration were prescribed oral rehydration therapy. Those with type C were transferred to hospital and did not take part in the study.
The children were then given a homeopathic interview and examination. Information about the nature of stools, abdominal pain, vomiting, mood and temperature, degree of thirst and appetite, presence of fever, abdominal bloating, sleep disturbance, perspiration and other signs and symptoms was collected. Each child was then prescribed one homeopathic medication on an individual basis. Identical tablets without medication were used as a placebo. Follow up was daily for five days.
The treatment group had a statistically significant (P<.05) decrease in duration of diarrhoea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for two consecutive days. there was also a significant difference (P<.05) in the number of stools per day between the two groups after 72 hours of treatment.
The researchers conclude that homeopathic treatment might be useful in this condition and add that further study should be considered.
D. Reilly, M. Taylor, N. Beattie, et al.,
Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
This study successfully reproduced evidence from two previous double-blinded trials all of which used the same model of homeopathic immunotherapy in inhalant allergy. In this third study, 9 of 11 patients on homeopathic treatment improved compared to only 5 of 13 patients on placebo. The researchers concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled studies don't. Their work has again be recently replicated and is submitted for publication. (See Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Lancet 1986, below.)
M. Weiser, W. Strosser, P. Klein,
Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study
Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885.
This was a study with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo, half of whom were given a homeopathic medicine (a combination of four homeopathic medicines) and half were given a leading conventional drug in Europe for vertigo, betahistine hydrochloride. The homeopathic medicines were found to be similarly effective and significantly safer than the conventional control.
-----------------
Here an interesting one comparing acetaminofen against a homeopathic product.
C. N. Shealy, MD, R.P. Thomlinson, V. Borgmeyer,
Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen
American Journal of Pain Management, 1998;8:89-91
A double-blinded study to document the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies in comparison to acetaminophen for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) among 65 patients. An IRB approved protocol. Results of the study documented better pain relief in the homeopathic group (55% achieved measured relief from homeopathy as compared to 38% from acetaminophen); however, the superiority of this treatment, in comparison with the acetaminophen group, did not reach statistical significance. The investigators conclude that homeopathic treatments for pain in OA patients appear to be safe and at least as effective as acetaminophen, and are without its potential adverse effects including compromise to both liver and kidney function. Many of the patients asked to continue with the homeopathic treatment.
------------------
The problem is that in those so-called new tests, they are mixing products and giving to a full range of patients, thats against homeopathy practices, where for the same symptoms two different patients should be treated differently, and at least some studies admit they have been done against conventional homeopathic ways. Here one that admit it.
------------------
Background: Homeopathy involves the use, in dilution, of substances which cause symptoms in their undiluted form. It is one of the most widespread forms of complementary medicines and is also used to treat asthma.
Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of homeopathy in people with chronic stable asthma.
Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field trials register, the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital database, the Muenchener Modell database and reference lists of articles.
Selection criteria: Randomised and possibly randomised trials of homeopathy for the treatment of stable chronic asthma, with observation periods of at least one week.
Data collection and analysis: Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by the second reviewer. Trial quality was assessed by the reviewers.
Main results: Three trials with a total of 154 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used three different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results.
The standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. In one trial, severity of symptoms was lessened in the homeopathy group compared to the placebo group. In another trial, lung function measures and medication use showed improvement in the homeopathy group compared to the placebo group. The third trial found improvement in both the homeopathy and placebo groups, but no difference between the groups.
Reviewers' conclusions: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond.
[This abstract has been prepared centrally].
Citation: Linde K, Jobst K A. Homeopathy for chronic asthma (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
They admit it not being conventional homeopathy, but they still run the test, its like giving asprins for a lung infection, and admiting its wrong, but still runing the test to see any results. Thats how many of the tests have been run, they give few populair homeopathic products without studying their effects on different people, when a homeopath will try specific treatments for each individual patients, because for the same symtoms there may be 10 different products, and that only few would work for each patients.
You posted a meta analysis, here 3 other meta-analysis.
Kleijnen 1991
British Medical Journal. 107 trials. Criteria-based meta-analysis.
77% are positive
The higher the scientific merit of the study, the more likely it is to show homoeopathy as superior to placebo.
The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homoeopathy as a regular treatment for certain conditions.
Boissel 1996
Report for European Commission. 15 trials. Very strict inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis; data synthesis by combining the significance levels (p-values) for the primary outcomes from each trial.
Combined p value for the 15 trials was highly significant p=0.0002.
' There is evidence that homeopathic medicine is more effective than placebo' .
Little evidence of publication bias.
Further high quality studies are needed.
Linde 1997
Lancet. 89 trials. Meta-analysis; data synthesis by combining the odds ratios.
Combined odds ratio 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy.
Odds ratio for 26 best quality studies was 1.66.
No evidence of significant publication bias.
The results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo.
Further research is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------
Now lets refer to the study of meta-analysis you refered... this study has been published in 1997.
http://nhscrd.york.ac.uk/online/dare/978346.htm
The same I refered above, this same exact study was re-used 2-3 more time from the period between 1997-2001, as new studies, meta-analysis are not new records of data's, meta-analysis are the "packing" of previous studies to come up with new conclusions, remark you here that more than 50 % of conventional drugs used will fail in any meta-analysis tests because of the fact that results of the first double-blind placebo tests are based on the pharmacologic compagny that run the said study for its own product, this is why the ratio fall down to 1-2 in many and many cases when more indepdent studies are made. Now if we were to use your logic we should than conclude that conventional drugs have no better effects than placebo. Face it man, you are a total ignorant on the subject you decided to talk about, you just searched on the web for homeopathy just to pull my legs and show that you know of what you are talking about, I can refer you to studies of drugs where the difference between placebo and the actual drug if 4 % in the range of the "error margin" and when they are still prescribed, but when those other studies from meta-analysis find out that a homeopathic product scores about 10 % better than placebo they conclude it has no big difference comparing it with placebo, when a meta-analysis difference of 10 % has less error margin than those pharmacetical biased tests. WHat about aspirin reducing the risks of heart attack ? How many meta-analysis it took to make any significant differences, they had to test 15,000 people, to have few % bellow of the margin of error to conclude those effects.
The next time you want to talk about a subject, read a little and learn before rejecting it just for the pleasure to contradict your oppenements, as for to conclude, anyone having read a little about homeopathy, will know that homeopathy act in long term, and is not a supression medication for short term action, "headaches" medications in homeopathy are the same as the rest, it takes 2 weeks at minimum to have significant results, they are not like acetaminofens that just act waiting minutes. Of course everyone having done a little research about the subject would know.
PS: Skeptics aproachs every claims with skepticism, but skeptics also asks the same standrads for everything things, homeopathy from any standard tests used in conventional medecine past the test, while still people need more and more tests, and now pharmacological compagnies are financing those new tests... any skeptics will be skeptical of the results of the tests financed from those compagnies that will have more millions in their pockets discrediting homeopathy. As a skeptic, I am skeptic of the results of trials done from pharamacetical compagnies. On the other hand, when homeopathy still resists to all those under belt unfair manipulations, in my book the proof without dough has been established, because right now, I can bring you more indepdent studies discrediting often used drugs, then some homeopathic drugs.
I am a real skeptic, you simply are not, an advice to you, the next time before writing something, know the subject you want to discuss about. I can post here more studies, studies after studies, on animals and babies as well, I don,t think that there is such thing as placebo in animals, even if the so-called skeptic a.ss Randi something claim to.
Truly yours
