Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy

作者: Aijing Shang , Karin Huwiler-Müntener , Linda Nartey , Peter Jüni , Stephan Dörig

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2

关键词: Odds ratioAlternative medicineTraditional medicineMEDLINEFunnel plotHomeopathyInternal medicinePlaceboMedicineClinical trialPsychological intervention

摘要: Background Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting trials a possible explanation for positive findings both homoeopathy conventional medicine. We analysed medicine estimated treatment least likely to be affected by bias. Methods Placebo-controlled were identified comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists relevant papers, contacts with experts. Trials matched disorder type outcome randomly selected from Cochrane Controlled Register (issue 1, 2003). Data extracted duplicate outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. described as double-blind, adequate randomisation, assumed higher methodological quality. examined funnel plots meta-regression models. Findings 110 conventional-medicine analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten 1573). 21 (19%) nine (8%) In groups, smaller those lower quality showed more beneficial than larger higher-quality trials. When analysis restricted large quality, ratio 0·88 (95% CI 0·65–1·19) (eight trials) 0·58 (0·39–0·85) (six trials). Interpretation Biases are present placebo-controlled account taken these biases analysis, there weak evidence effect remedies, strong interventions. This finding compatible notion clinical placebo effects.

参考文章(32)
Jonathan A.C Sterne, Matthias Egger, Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 54, pp. 1046- 1055 ,(2001) , 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8
M. Egger, G. D. Smith, meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies BMJ. ,vol. 316, pp. 61- 66 ,(1998) , 10.1136/BMJ.316.7124.61
Jonathan A.C Sterne, David Gavaghan, Matthias Egger, Publication and related bias in meta-analysis : power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 53, pp. 1119- 1129 ,(2000) , 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0
D. G Altman, J M. Bland, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BMJ. ,vol. 311, pp. 485- 485 ,(1995) , 10.1136/BMJ.311.7003.485
Drummond Rennie, Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical trials. JAMA. ,vol. 282, pp. 1766- 1768 ,(1999) , 10.1001/JAMA.282.18.1766
J Kleijnen, P Knipschild, G ter Riet, Trials of homeopathy. BMJ. ,vol. 302, pp. 960- 960 ,(1991) , 10.1136/BMJ.302.6782.960
Kenneth F Schulz, Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines The Lancet. ,vol. 348, pp. 596- 598 ,(1996) , 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01201-9
John P. A. Ioannidis, Joseph Lau, Completeness of Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials JAMA. ,vol. 285, pp. 437- 443 ,(2001) , 10.1001/JAMA.285.4.437
J. Kleijnen, A.J.M. de Craen, J. van Everdingen, L. Krol, Placebo effect in double-blind clinical trials: a review of interactions with medications The Lancet. ,vol. 344, pp. 1347- 1349 ,(1994) , 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90699-8
Kenneth F Schulz, Iain Chalmers, Richard J Hayes, Douglas G Altman, Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. ,vol. 273, pp. 408- 412 ,(1995) , 10.1001/JAMA.273.5.408