Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?

Summary We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Lancet (British edition) 1994-12, Vol.344 (8937), p.1601-1606
Main Authors: Reilly, D.T, Taylor, M.A, Campbell, J.H, Carter, R, Stevenson, R.D, Beattie, Ngm, McSharry, C, Aitchison, Tc
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Allergens - immunology
Allergens - therapeutic use
Allergies
Analysis of Variance
Animals
Asthma
Asthma - physiopathology
Asthma - therapy
Biological and medical sciences
Clinical Protocols
Double blind studies
Double-Blind Method
False Positive Reactions
Female
Homeopathy
Humans
Immunity (Disease)
Immunopathology
Immunotherapy
Immunotherapy (general aspects)
Male
Medical research
Medical sciences
Mites - immunology
Respiratory function
Respiratory Mechanics
Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal - therapy
Systematic review
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary We tested, under independent conditions, the reproducibility of evidence from two previous trials that homoeopathy differs from placebo. The test model was again homoeopathic immunotherapy. 28 patients with allergic asthma, most of them sensitive to house-dust mite, were randomly allocated to receive either oral homoeopathic immunotherapy to their principal allergen or identical placebo. The test treatments were given as a complement to their unaltered conventional care. A daily visual analogue scale of overall symptom intensity was the outcome measure. A difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (p=0·003). There were similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. A meta-analysis of all three trials strengthened the evidence that homoeopathy does more than placebo (p=0·0004). Is the reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof of the clinical trial's capacity to produce false-positive results?
ISSN:0140-6736
1474-547X
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90407-3