Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Though potentially an important limitation in the literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy, the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) has not previously been systematically investigated. OBJECTIVE: As an integral part of a programme of systematic reviews, to assess MVHT of eligible RCTs of individualised homeopathic treatment. METHODS: From 46 previously identified papers in the category, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were thus the subject of the study. For each of six domains of assessment per trial, MVHT was judged independently by three randomly allocated assessors from our group, who reached a final verdict by consensus discussion as necessary. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were judged overall as 'acceptable' MVHT, nine as 'uncertain' MVHT, and four as 'inadequate' MVHT. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support concern that deficient MVHT has frequently undermined the published findings of RCTs of individualised homeopathy. However, the 13 trials with 'uncertain' or 'inadequate' MVHT will be a focus of attention in supplementary meta-analysis. New RCTs of individualised homeopathy must aim to maximise MVHT and to enable its assessment through clear reporting.

Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study.

BACKGROUND: A method for assessing the model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy is needed. To date, only conventional standards for assessing intrinsic bias (internal validity) of trials have been invoked, with little recognition of the special characteristics of homeopathy. We aimed to identify relevant judgmental domains to use in assessing the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). We define MVHT as the extent to which a homeopathic intervention and the main measure of its outcome, as implemented in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reflect 'state-of-the-art' homeopathic practice. METHODS: Using an iterative process, an international group of experts developed a set of six judgmental domains, with associated descriptive criteria. The domains address: (I) the rationale for the choice of the particular homeopathic intervention; (II) the homeopathic principles reflected in the intervention; (III) the extent of homeopathic practitioner input; (IV) the nature of the main outcome measure; (V) the capability of the main outcome measure to detect change; (VI) the length of follow-up to the endpoint of the study. Six papers reporting RCTs of homeopathy of varying design were randomly selected from the literature. A standard form was used to record each assessor's independent response per domain, using the optional verdicts 'Yes', 'Unclear', 'No'. Concordance among the eight verdicts per domain, across all six papers, was evaluated using the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: The six judgmental domains enabled MVHT to be assessed with 'fair' to 'almost perfect' concordance in each case. For the six RCTs examined, the method allowed MVHT to be classified overall as 'acceptable' in three, 'unclear' in two, and 'inadequate' in one. CONCLUSION: Future systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy should adopt the MVHT method as part of a complete appraisal of trial validity.

Oscillococcinum for influenza treatment.

The use of a complementary medicine approach, and specifically of the popular medicine Oscillococcinum, for the treatment of influenza-like syndromes remains controversial. This brief paper analyses the currently available literature on this homeopathic preparation and the Cochrane Collaboration's 2006 systematic review, along with other recent studies, in order to clarify certain fundamental aspects of its use in the treatment of influenza. In the light of the reported findings, and applying the rigorous criteria of evidence-based medicine, we suggest that this medicine should be placed in category "BI".

Study of the practice of homeopathic general practitioners in France.

Little is known about the practice of homeopathic general practitioners (GPs) in France. We report a descriptive, cross-sectional study on this subject. The aim was to acquire a clearer idea of (1) the type of patients who consult homeopathic GPs and (2) the type of treatment provided by such GPs, in terms of diagnoses, prescriptions and costs. The survey was carried out on a representative sample of the French homeopathic GP population and covered three seasons of the year. The data was collected by means of a questionnaire which GPs completed for each consulting patient. It emerged that the type of patients who consult homeopathic GPs are chiefly women, between the ages of 20 and 54, living in an urban environment, not in employment, covered by National Health Insurance for Salaried Workers, and belonging to a Mutual Benefit Association. The most common reasons for consultation were ENT disorders, stress and anxiety. The homeopathic GPs mainly used homeopathy to treat these disorders. On average, four medicinal products per patient were prescribed per 2-month course of treatment, for an average reimbursed cost of 3.78 Euros.

Study of the practice of homeopathic general practitioners in France

Little is known about the practice of homeopathic general practitioners in France. We report a descriptive, cross-sectional study on this subject. The aim was to acquire a clearer idea of the type of patients who... (AU)