Search

Background: We aimed to investigate whether students at German medical schools participating in elective courses on acupuncture and homeopathy differ from an unselected group of students regarding attitudes and personality traits., Methods: Elective courses on acupuncture and homeopathy in the academic half-year 2013/14 all over Germany were identified and participants invited to fill in a questionnaire including nineteen questions on attitudes towards Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), orientation towards science, care and status orientation, and a short validated instrument (Big-Five-Inventory-10) to measure personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness). Participants of a mandatory family medicine course at one university served as unselected control group., Results: Two hundred twenty and 113 students from elective courses on acupuncture and homeopathy, respectively, and 315 control students participated (response rate 93%). Students participating in elective courses had much more positive attitudes towards CAM, somewhat lower science and status orientation, and somewhat higher care orientation than control group students (all p-values for three-group comparisons < 0.001). There were no differences between the three groups regarding personality traits with the exception of lower values for agreeableness in controls (p = 0.009)., Conclusions: The findings of this study show that attitudes of students participating in elective courses on acupuncture or homeopathy at German medical schools differ to a considerable degree from the attitudes of unselected students.

Background: We aimed to investigate why medical students in Germany participate in elective courses on acupuncture or homeopathy., Methods: The study was a nationwide, cross-sectional survey. Elective courses on acupuncture and homeopathy in the academic half-year 2013/14 were identified by inquiries directed to all 37 German medical schools, to student initiatives, and organizations supporting such courses. Participants of courses were asked to fill in a questionnaire consisting of a free-text question on their motives and closed questions regarding personal experiences, personal environment, evidence, role of the therapy as a complement to conventional medicine, and opportunistic aspects in relation to the therapy chosen., Results: Students participating in 16 of 18 identified acupuncture courses (n = 220) and 12 of 13 identified homeopathy courses (n = 113) filled in the questionnaire. Content analysis of the free text showed that personal experience, a feeling that conventional medicine is somehow incomplete, the belief that acupuncture or homeopathy could help to overcome this shortcoming, and positive characteristics attributed to the therapies were the main motives for participation. Quantitative analyses showed that own experiences and considering the therapy a useful complement to conventional medicine were similarly rated motives in both groups, while opportunistic aspects played almost no role. The influence of the personal environment was more important among homeopathy students, while acupuncture students considered their therapy better backed by evidence., Conclusion: In our survey, personal experiences and the belief that acupuncture or homeopathy allows grasping the patient more holistically were primary motives for participation., (© 2017 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

Background: The specific clinical benefit of the homeopathic consultation and of homeopathic remedies in patients with depression has not yet been investigated., Aims: To investigate the 1) specific effect of individualized homeopathic Q-potencies compared to placebo and 2) the effect of an extensive homeopathic case taking (case history I) compared to a shorter, rather conventional one (case history II) in the treatment of acute major depression (moderate episode) after six weeks., Methods: A randomized, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-armed trial using a 2×2 factorial design with a six-week study duration per patient was performed., Results: A total of 44 from 228 planned patients were randomized (2∶1∶2∶1 randomization: 16 homeopathic Q-potencies/case history I, 7 placebo/case history I, 14 homeopathic Q-potencies/case history II, 7 placebo/case history II). Because of recruitment problems, the study was terminated prior to full recruitment, and was underpowered for the preplanned confirmatory hypothesis testing. Exploratory data analyses showed heterogeneous and inconclusive results with large variance in the sample. The mean difference for the Hamilton-D after 6 weeks was 2.0 (95%CI -1.2;5.2) for Q-potencies vs. placebo and -3.1 (-5.9;-0.2) for case history I vs. case history II. Overall, no consistent or clinically relevant results across all outcomes between homeopathic Q-potencies versus placebo and homeopathic versus conventional case taking were observed. The frequency of adverse events was comparable for all groups., Conclusions: Although our results are inconclusive, given that recruitment into this trial was very difficult and we had to terminate early, we cannot recommend undertaking a further trial addressing this question in a similar setting. Prof. Dr. Claudia Witt had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01178255. Protocol publication: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/12/1/43.

Background: Homeopathy is often sought by patients with depression. In classical homeopathy, the treatment consists of two main elements: the case history and the prescription of an individually selected homeopathic remedy. Previous data suggest that individualized homeopathic Q-potencies were not inferior to the antidepressant fluoxetine in a sample of patients with moderate to severe depression. However, the question remains whether individualized homeopathic Q-potencies and/or the type of the homeopathic case history have a specific therapeutical effect in acute depression as this has not yet been investigated. The study aims to assess the two components of individualized homeopathic treatment for acute depression, i.e., to investigate the specific effect of individualized Q-potencies versus placebo and to investigate the effect of different approaches to the homeopathic case history., Methods/design: A randomized, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-armed trial using a 2 x 2 factorial design with a six-week study duration per patient will be performed. 228 patients diagnosed with major depression (moderate episode) by a psychiatrist will be included. The primary endpoint is the total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale after six weeks. Secondary end points are: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score after two and four weeks; response and remission rates, Beck Depression inventory total score, quality of life and safety at two, four and six weeks. Statistical analyses will be by intention-to-treat. The main endpoint will be analysed by a two-factorial analysis of covariance. Within this model generalized estimation equations will be used to estimate differences between verum and placebo, and between both types of case history., Discussion: For the first time this study evaluates both the specific effect of homeopathic medicines and of a homeopathic case taking in patients with depression. It is an attempt to deal with the challenges of homeopathic research and the results might be useful information in the current discussion about the evidence on homeopathy, Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01178255.

Background: Reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy is an important issue as comprehensive description of what exactly was done is required. So far, there is no guideline for authors available, unlike criteria catalogues common in clinical research., Methods: A Delphi Process was conducted, including a total of five rounds, three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last five years were involved., Results: A checklist of 23 items was obtained and supplemented with detailed examples emphasizing what each item implies. Background, objectives and possible hypotheses should be given in the part 'introduction'. Special emphasis is put on the 'materials and methods' section, where a detailed description of chosen controls, object of investigation, experimental setup, replication, parameters, intervention, allocation, blinding, and statistical methods is required. The section 'results' should present sufficient details on analysed data, descriptive as well as inferential. Authors should discuss their results and give an interpretation in the context of current evidence., Conclusion: A guideline for Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research (REHBaR) was compiled to be applied by authors when preparing their manuscripts, and to be used by scientific journals in the reviewing process. Furthermore the guideline is a commitment to a certain minimum quality level needed in basic research, e.g. blinding and randomisation. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

Objective: To investigate to which extent physicians participating in specialization and continuing medical education courses read clinical research articles and how relevant they deem this for their practical work., Methods: Physicians participating in courses on homeopathy (n = 96), acupuncture (n = 79), naturopathy (n = 75), family medicine (n = 50) and internal medicine (n = 136) filled in a questionnaire. They were asked to what extent and how they kept themselves informed about clinical research, how their daily work was affected by clinical research and why they did not spend more time reading clinical research literature., Results: More than half of the participants (51%) reported they did not spend any time reading original research articles. Differences between the five groups of physicians were small. The proportion of physicians who considered the relevance of clinical trials for practical work as high or very high was 52% among participants of courses on homeopathy, 68% on acupuncture, 67% on naturopathy, 63% on family medicine and 81% in the internal medicine event. In all groups of physicians the relevance of clinical trials and meta-analyses to daily work was rated lower than that of personal experience, advice from colleagues, continuing medical education events, pathophysiological explanations, textbooks and guidelines. The large amount of time required to read original articles was reported as a major reason for the limited interest in clinical research., Conclusion: Among the physicians participating in this survey clinical trials and meta-analyses were only of subordinate relevance for clinical decision making., (2008 S. Karger AG, Basel)

The international review board was set up as the scientific advisory body of the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme (PEK) in 2002. It has met several times and has given advice with respect to the most important aspects of the programme. It would have been the normal procedure for the review board to have had the opportunity to comment on the drafts of the final scientific products as well as the draft of the summary report, in order to advise on them, before the documents became publicly available and formed the basis for political decision making. But the responsible authorities changed this process. In the following, the review board comments both on this process and on the products.

Background: Acupuncture and homeopathy are commonly used complementary treatments for chronic asthma. This review summarizes two recently updated Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the safety and efficacy of homeopathy or acupuncture in individuals with chronic stable asthma., Inclusion Criteria: Only randomized-controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Statistical aggregation of the data was undertaken where possible., Search Strategy: Searches for both reviews were done with the assistance of the Cochrane Airways Group, and through electronic alerts., Results: ACUPUNCTURE: 11 studies with 324 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial reporting was poor, and the trial quality was deemed inadequate to generalize the findings. There was variation in the type of active and sham acupunctures, the outcomes assessed and the time points measured. The points used in the sham arm of some studies are used for the treatment of asthma according to traditional Chinese medicine. Two studies used individualized treatment strategies, and one study used a combination strategy of formula acupuncture with the addition of individualized points. No statistically significant or clinically relevant effects were found for acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture. When data from two small studies were pooled, no difference in lung function was observed (post-treatment FEV1): standardized mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.55)., Conclusion: ACUPUNCTURE: There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of acupuncture in the treatment of asthma. Further research needs to be undertaken, and this should take into account the different types of acupuncture practiced., Results: HOMEOPATHY: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included in the review. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but were of variable quality. Standardized treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice where treatment tends to be individualized. The results of the studies are conflicting in terms of effects on lung function. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a "package of care" effect (i.e. the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualized homeopathic practice)., Conclusion: HOMEOPATHY: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma. Further studies could assess whether individuals respond to a "package of care" rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.

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 Münchener Modell database and reference lists of articles. Searches were current as of August 2003., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials of homeopathy for the treatment of stable chronic asthma, with observation periods of at least one week were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Trial quality was assessed by the reviewers., Main Results: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were conflicting results in terms of lung function between the studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a 'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualised homeopathic practice)., Reviewer's 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 will help to establish to what extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.

Background: We aimed to describe the approaches and characteristics of systematic reviews on three major complementary therapies and to assess their methodological quality., Methods: Systematic reviews of clinical trials of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and homeopathy were identified from a database developed for the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field. Information on conditions, interventions, methods, results, and conclusions was extracted using a pre-tested form; methodological quality was assessed using the Oxman scale., Results: 115 reviews were included (39 on acupuncture, 58 on herbal medicine, 18 on homeopathy). Research questions were most specific in herbal medicine, and tended to be very general in homeopathy. The main comparison in most reviews was with placebo. The methodological quality of reviews was highly variable. Deficiencies were most frequent for the description of the selection process and the summary of the results of primary studies., Conclusion: Systematic reviews tend to approach different complementary therapies in different manner. Compared to a set of reviews on analgesic interventions methodological quality was slightly better on the average, but there is ample room for improvement in future complementary medicine reviews., (Copyright 2003 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg)

Homeopathy is a 200-year-old therapeutic system that uses small doses of various substances to stimulate autoregulatory and self-healing processes. Homeopathy selects substances by matching a patient's symptoms with symptoms produced by these substances in healthy individuals. Medicines are prepared by serial dilution and shaking, which proponents claim imprints information into water. Although many conventional physicians find such notions implausible, homeopathy had a prominent place in 19th-century health care and has recently undergone a worldwide revival. In the United States, patients who seek homeopathic care are more affluent and younger and more often seek treatment for subjective symptoms than those who seek conventional care. Homeopathic remedies were allowed by the 1939 Pure Food and Drug Act and are available over the counter. Some data--both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research--show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.

Background: To investigate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in three areas of complementary medicine., Methods: The methodological quality of 207 randomized trials collected for five previously published systematic reviews on homeopathy, herbal medicine (Hypericum for depression, Echinacea for common cold), and acupuncture (for asthma and chronic headache) was assessed using a validated scale (the Jadad scale) and single quality items., Results: While the methodological quality of the trials was highly variable, the majority had important shortcomings in reporting and/or methodology. Major problems in most trials were the description of allocation concealment and the reporting of drop-outs and withdrawals. There were relevant differences in single quality components between the different complementary therapies: For example, acupuncture trials reported adequate allocation concealment less often (6% versus 32% of homeopathy and 26% of herb trials), and trials on herbal extracts had better summary scores (mean score 3.12 versus 2.33 for homeopathy and 2.19 for acupuncture trials). Larger trials published more recently in journals listed in Medline and in English language scored significantly higher than trials not meeting these criteria., Conclusion: Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant methodological weaknesses. The type of weaknesses varies considerably across interventions.

Background: Complementary therapies are widespread but controversial. We aim to provide a comprehensive collection and a summary of systematic reviews of clinical trials in three major complementary therapies (acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy). This article is dealing with homeopathy. Potentially relevant reviews were searched through the register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and bibliographies of articles and books. To be included articles had to review prospective clinical trials of homeopathy; had to describe review methods explicitly; had to be published; and had to focus on treatment effects. Information on conditions, interventions, methods, results and conclusions was extracted using a pretested form and summarized descriptively., Results: Eighteen out of 22 potentially relevant reviews preselected in the screening process met the inclusion criteria. Six reviews addressed the question whether homeopathy is effective across conditions and interventions. The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing. For isopathic nosodes for allergic conditions, oscillococcinum for influenza-like syndromes and galphimia for pollinosis the evidence is promising while in other areas reviewed the results are equivocal., Interpretation: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.

Despite a growing interest in uncovering the basic mechanisms of arthritis, medical treatment remains symptomatic. Current medical treatments do not consistently halt the long-term progression of these diseases, and surgery may still be needed to restore mechanical function in large joints. Patients with rheumatic syndromes often seek alternative therapies, with homeopathy being one of the most frequent. Homeopathy is one of the most frequently used complementary therapies worldwide.

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., Reviewer's 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.

We investigated the influence of indicators of methodological quality on study outcome in a set of 89 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homoeopathy in three different ways: (1) The results of studies meeting single criteria (explicit statement of random allocation, allocation concealment, double-blinding, completeness of follow-up) of methodological quality were compared with those of studies not meeting the criteria in univariate and multivariate analyses; (2) The results of studies scoring above and below predefined scores in two quality assessment scales were compared; (3) Primary studies were consecutively entered into a cumulative meta-analysis according to the summary scores derived from the quality assessment scales. All analyses were performed using meta-regression methods. Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome.

Background and Objective: Individualized homeopathy is the most controversial form of this therapy. This review aims to summarize the actual state of clinical efficacy research on individualized homeopathy., Methods: Electronic databases as well as other sources were searched for possibly relevant studies. Randomized or quasirandomized controlled clinical trials comparing an individualized homeopathic treatment strategy with placebo, no treatment, or another treatment were eligible. Information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes, and results was extracted in a standardized manner and quality was assessed using a checklist and two scoring systems. Trials providing sufficient data were pooled in a quantitative meta-analysis., Results: A total of 32 trials (28 placebo-controlled, 2 comparing homeopathy and another treatment, 2 comparing both) involving a total of 1778 patients met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was highly variable. In the 19 placebo-controlled trials providing sufficient data for meta-analysis, individualized homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo (pooled rate ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.23), but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen., Conclusion: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.

Background: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo., Methods: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes., Findings: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05)., Interpretation: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

This article describes and discusses five placebo-controlled randomized studies investigating the immunomodulatory activity of preparations containing extracts of Echinacea in healthy volunteers. A total of 134 (18 female and 116 male) healthy volunteers between 18 and 40 years of age were studied. Two studies tested intravenous homeopathic complex preparations containing Echinacea angustifolia D1 (study 1) and D4 (study 5). Two studies (2 and 3a) tested oral alcoholic extracts of roots of E. purpurea, one study an extract of E. pallida roots (study 3b), and one study an extract of E. purpurea herb (study 4). Test and placebo preparations were applied for four (study 5) or five (studies 1-4) consecutive days. The primary outcome measure for immunomodulatory activity was the relative phagocytic activity of polymorphonuclear neutrophil granulocytes (PNG), measured in studies 1 and 2 with a microscopic method and in studies 3, 4, and 5 with two different cytometric methods. The secondary outcome measure was the number of leukocytes in peripheral venous blood. Safety was assessed by a screening program of blood and other objective parameters as well as by documentation of all subjective side effects. In studies 1 and 2 the phagocytic activity of PNG was significantly enhanced compared with placebo [maximal stimulation 22.7% (95% confidence interval 17.5-27.9%) and 54.0% (8.4-99.6%), respectively], while in the other studies no significant effects were observed. Analysis of intragroup differences revealed significant changes in phagocytic activity during the observation periods in five test and three control groups. Leukocyte number was not influenced significantly in any study. Side effects due to the test preparations could not be detected. Our studies provide evidence for immunomodulatory activity of the homeopathic combination tested in study 1 and the E. purpureae radix extract tested in study 2. The negative results of the other three studies are difficult to interpret due to the different methods for measuring phagocytosis, the relevant changes in phagocytic activity within most placebo and treatment groups during the observation period, and the small sample sizes. Future studies should be performed on patients rather than healthy volunteers and use standardized or chemically defined monopreparations of Echinacea.