|
 |
Meta-analyses combine the results of numerous clinical trials in an effort to more
accurately analyze the findings and data. Homeopathy meta-analyses are rigorously
conducted and aim to assess the quality of the clinical trials conducted, as well
as the consistency and accuracy of the trial results.
The conclusions from meta-analyses involving homeopathy have convinced meta-analyses
authors of the acceptability of homeopathic clinical trials and their positive results.
Trial methods with Recognized Reliability
A 1991 meta-analysis involving the meticulous study of 107 trials concluded that
homeopathy has been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled trials.
Among these clinical trials, the majority (81 of 107 trials) had positive results
concerning the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
Ruling out the Chance and the Placebo Effect
A similar study examined the data from trials that involved the efficacy of homeopathic
medicines in relation to a placebo or to no treatment. Experts concluded that
“the number of significant results was clearly not down to chance.”
Yet another study involving the analysis of 89 trials took into account the criteria
specific to the homeopathic therapeutic method. This study concluded that even if
evidence of the complete efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of a single given
patient were insufficient, “it was impossible that the clinical effects of the
homeopathy were exclusively caused by a placebo effect.”
In August 2005, the weekly medical journal, The Lancet, published
findings from a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homeopathy, concluding that
homeopathic remedies are no more effective than a placebo. However, The
Lancet drew strong criticism from peer researchers and homeopathic experts
for its unfavorable—and some say, inaccurate—conclusions.
To arrive at the conclusion that homeopathic medicines are no better than a placebo,
the authors are suspected of implicitly removing a series of a trials, retaining
just 14 (8 on homeopathy) of the 220 initial trials (110 of which were on homeopathic
medicine).
In December 2005, The Lancet printed four letters from researches in response to
the findings. The conclusions were that 19 percent of the homeopathic trials and
8 percent of the allopathic trials were of the best quality, and that the 110
trials on homeopathic medicine showed a positive treatment effect in relation to
a placebo. In essence, the findings supported the earlier meta-analysis,
which demonstrated that the trials were conducted comparable to those on conventional
medicines and that homeopathic medicines were, indeed, more effective than a placebo.
These meta-analyses highlight the perfectibility of the research conducted in homeopathy
and the necessity of rigorously and systematically pursuing them. Further, they
also show that the reliability of the testing to which homeopathy is already subjected
is beyond doubt.
|
|
|
Oscillococcinum® is a reliable, safe, flu treatment that can be taken by adults and children two years and older.
view details
|
|