Homeopathy 2015; 104(01): 3-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.001
Original Paper

Veterinary homeopathy: meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

Robert T. Mathie
1   British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK
Jürgen Clausen
2   Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Am Deimelsberg 36, D-45276 Essen, Germany
› Author Affiliations

Background: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy has not previously been undertaken. For all medical conditions and species collectively, we tested the hypothesis that the outcome of homeopathic intervention (treatment and/or prophylaxis, individualised and/or non-individualised) is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos.

Methods: All facets of the review, including literature search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, were described in an earlier paper. A trial was judged to comprise reliable evidence if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specific domains of assessment. Effect size was reported as odds ratio (OR). A trial was judged free of vested interest if it was not funded by a homeopathic pharmacy. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model, with hypothesis-driven sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias.

Results: Nine of 15 trials with extractable data displayed high risk of bias; low or unclear risk of bias was attributed to each of the remaining six trials, only two of which comprised reliable evidence without overt vested interest. For all N = 15 trials, pooled OR = 1.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 to 2.56]; P = 0.01. For the N = 2 trials with suitably reliable evidence, pooled OR = 2.62 [95% CI, 1.13 to 6.05]; P = 0.02).

Conclusions: Meta-analysis provides some very limited evidence that clinical intervention in animals using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos. The low number and quality of the trials hinders a more decisive conclusion.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.001.

Supplementary Material

Publication History

Received: 26 June 2014

Accepted: 15 August 2014

Publication Date:
23 December 2017 (online)

© 2014. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Mathie R.T., Hacke D., Clausen J. Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: Characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review. Homeopathy 2012; 101: 196-203
  • 2 Mathie R.T., Clausen J. Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised placebo-controlled trials. Vet Rec 2014; 175: 373-381
  • 3 Hektoen L., Larsen S., Ødegaard S.A., Løken T. Comparison of homeopathy, placebo and antibiotic treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows – methodological issues and results from a randomized-clinical trial. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med 2004; 51: 439-446
  • 4 Camerlink I., Ellinger L., Bakker E.J., Lantinga E.A. Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 57-62
  • 5 Deeks J.J., Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Version 5.1.0.
  • 6 Higgins J.P.T., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Version 5.1.0.
  • 7 Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Version 5.1.0.
  • 8 Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843
  • 9 Shang A., Huwiler-Muntener K., Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726-732
  • 10 Mathie R.T., Legg L.A., Clausen J., Davidson J.R.T., Lloyd S.M., Ford I. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled, trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: study protocol. Version 1.0, (Accessed, 27 May 2014) http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Study_protocol_for_systematic_review.pdf 2013
  • 11 Schünemann H.J., Oxman A.D., Vist G.E. et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Version 5.1.0.
  • 12 Sterne J.A.C., Egger M., Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins J.P.T., Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Version 5.1.0.
  • 13 Cracknell N.R., Mills D.S. A double-blind placebo-controlled study into the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy for fear of firework noises in the dog (Canis familiaris). Vet J 2008; 177: 80-88
  • 14 Andersson R., Morcillo L.L., Sommer H. Untersuchungen über den Einsatz von homöopathischen Arzneimitteln bei der Behandlung und Prophylaxe subklinischer Mastitiden von Milchkühen [Treatment and prophylaxis of subclinical mastitis with homeopathic drugs]. Tierärztl Umsch 1997; 52: 407-412
  • 15 Holmes M.A., Cockcroft P.D., Booth C.E., Heath M.F. Controlled clinical trial of the effect of a homoeopathic nosode on the somatic cell counts in the milk of clinically normal dairy cows. Vet Rec 2005; 156: 565-567
  • 16 Danieli P.P., Lacetera N., Bernabucci U., Ronchi B. Conventional and homeopathic treatments in late pregnant goats: effects on metabolic status and immune response. Ital J Anim Sci 2009; 8 (Suppl. 02) 613-615
  • 17 Mathie R.T., Lloyd S.M., Legg L.A. et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014; 3: 142.
  • 18 Hoover TA. Epidemic diseases and homeopathic prophylaxis: fact or fiction. http://toddhoovermd.com/articles/epidemic-diseases-and-homeopathic-prophylaxis.html (Accessed, 26 June 2014)
  • 19 Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412
  • 20 Hartling L., Ospina M., Liang Y. et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4012 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b4012.
  • 21 Faculty of Homeopathy. Veterinary research: randomised controlled trials. http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/veterinary-research/ (Accessed, 27 May 2014)
  • 22 Werner C., Sobiraj A., Sundrum A. Efficacy of homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in cases of mild and moderate bovine clinical mastitis. J Dairy Res 2010; 77: 460-467
  • 23 de Verdier K., Öhagen P., Alenius S. No effect of a homeopathic preparation on neonatal calf diarrhoea in a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Acta Vet Scand 2003; 44: 97-101
  • 24 Fidelak Ch, Klocke P., Heuwieser W. Homöopathische Prophylaxe in der Bestandsbetreuung von Milchkühen. Teil 1 – Fruchtbarkeit. [Homeopathic prophylaxis in dairy cows on an organic farm. Part 1 – fertility]. Dtsch Tierärztliche Wochenschr 2007; 114: 268-274
  • 25 Hielm-Björkman A., Tulamo R.M., Salonen H., Raekallio M. Evaluating complementary therapies for canine osteoarthritis – Part II: a homeopathic combination preparation (Zeel). Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2009; 6: 465-471
  • 26 Kayne S., Rafferty A. The use of Arsenicum album 30c to complement conventional treatment of neonatal diarrhoea (‘scours’) in calves. Br Homeopath J 1994; 83: 202-204
  • 27 Searcy R., Reyes O., Guajardo G. Control of subclinical bovine mastitis. Utilization of a homoeopathic combination. Br Homeopath J 1995; 84: 67-70
  • 28 Wolter H. Arzneiwirkungsprüfung an Caulophyllum D 30: Ein doppelter Blindversuch.[Drug efficacy testing of Caulophyllum D 30. A double-blind trial]. Der Prakt Tierarzt 1966; 47: 431-432 496–501
  • 29 Williamson A.V., Mackie W.L., Crawford W.J., Rennie B. A trial of Sepia 200c. Prevention of anoestrus problems in dairy cows. Br Homeopath J 1995; 84: 14-20
  • 30 Albrecht H., Schütte A. Homeopathy versus antibiotics in metaphylaxis of infectious diseases: a clinical study in pig fattening and its significance to consumers. Altern Ther Health Med 1999; 5: 64-68
  • 31 Arlt S., Padberg W., Drillich M., Heuwieser W. Efficacy of homeopathic remedies as prophylaxis of bovine endometritis. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92: 4945-4953
  • 32 Guajardo-Bernal G., Searcy-Bernal R., Soto-Avila J. Growth-promoting effect of sulphur 201c in pigs. Br Homeopath J 1996; 85: 15-16
  • 33 Soto F.R.M., Vuaden E.R., Paulo Coelho C. et al. Reproductive performance of sows inseminated with diluted semen treated with homeopathic medicine. Int J High Dilution Res 2010; 9: 51-57