A new “comprehensive review” of homeopathy

Homeopathy was founded some two hundred years ago by Dr Samuel Christian Hahnemann. Over time, it has grown to be among the most frequently used forms of alternative medicine in Europe and the USA. It is underpinned by the principle of ‘like cures like’, where highly diluted substances are used for therapeutic purposes, by producing similar symptoms to when the substance is used in healthy people. Many studies have been published on the value of homeopathy in treating diseases such as cancer, depression, psoriasis, allergic rhinitis, asthma, otitis, migraine, neuroses, allergies, joint disease, insomnia, sinusitis, urinary tract infections and acne, to name a few. An international team recently published a “comprehensive review” of the literature on homeopathy and evaluated its effectiveness in clinical practice.

Their conclusions were as follows:

The current evidence supports a positive role for homeopathy in health and wellbeing across a broad range of different diseases in both adult and paediatric populations. However further research to assess its cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy in larger studies is required. These findings may encourage healthcare providers and policymakers to consider the integration of homeopathic therapies into current medical practice, to provide a greater sense of patient autonomy and improve the consumer experience.

Medicine is dynamic and continues to evolve. Conventional medicine, while backed by the largest body of evidence thus far to support its safety and efficacy, still has its limitations in terms of side effects and subsequent effects on quality of life. This analysis calls for more in-depth assessment of the current research on homeopathy across a larger range of diseases.

And their ‘Key Summary Points’ were:

• While homeopathy is among the most frequently applied forms of alternative medicine, there is a lack of familiarity with this therapeutic modality within everyday medical practice.
• This review examines some of the available evidence in relation to the impact of homeopathy on a variety of common chronic diseases.
• Homeopathy was found to have the potential for symptom improvement in certain diagnoses within the fields of internal medicine, oncology, obstetrics and mental health.
• Although there is a paucity of studies on homeopathy within the context of standard clinical practice, an opportunity exists for further research into its application by utilising conventional study designs.

To understand how the researchers could arrive at these conclusions, we need to have a look at their methodology. This is their full description:

We conducted a literature review to answer the following research questions:

• What is the current knowledge on the use of homeopathy in clinical practice?
• Has the use of homeopathy achieved beneficial results in patients being treated for specific clinical entities?

Results were then appraised in relation to:

1. Population: patients using homeopathy, physicians and homeopaths who reported using homeopathic agents in the included studies
2. Intervention: homeopathic remedies
3. Control: conventional treatment or no treatment
4. Outcome: improvement in patients’ conditions (or positive results)

Keywords were searched in respect of homeopathy (homeopathy; formulas, homeopathic; pharmacopoeias, homeopathic; materia medica and vitalism) and clinical practice (complementary and alternative medicine, health). The following search terms were used: (“homeopathy” OR “formulas, homeopathic” OR “pharmacopoeias, homeopathic” OR “materia medica” OR “vitalism”) AND (“health” OR “complementary and alternative medicine”).

Two electronic databases were searched using the search terms homeopathy, cancer therapy, type 2 diabetes, complementary and alternative medicine, COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. Material retrieved was examined to omit overlapping results or duplicates. Publications in languages other than English, and those without full texts accessible online, were excluded.

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new study with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

___________________________

Two crucial things are missing here:

1. An adequate description of which articles were included and which were discarded. A look at the reference list discloses that only articles in favour of homeopathy were considered.
2. A description of the critical evaluation performed of the included evidence. A look at the text shows that no critical evaluation took place.

Thus this paper turns out to be not a ‘comprehensive review’ but a ‘comprehensive white-wash’ of homeopathy. Using the methodology of the authors it would be easy, for instance, to publish a comprehensive review demonstrating that the earth is flat.

I sugget the journal editors, peer-reviewers and authors of this idiotic paper bow their heads in shame!