Homeopathy 2015; 104(03): 164-169
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2015.02.004
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2015

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

Robert T Mathie
1  British Homeopathic Association, Hahnemann House, 29 Park Street West, Luton LU1 3BE, UK
,
Michel Van Wassenhoven
2  Belgian Homeopathic Medicines Registration Commission, FAMHP, Rue Taille Madame 23, B-1450 Chastre, Belgium
,
Jennifer Jacobs
3  School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
,
Menachem Oberbaum
4  Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
,
Helmut Roniger
5  Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, 60 Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3HR, UK
,
Joyce Frye
6  Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
,
Raj K Manchanda
7  Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi 110058, India
,
Laurence Terzan
8  Boiron, 20 Rue de la Liberation, 69110 Sainte Foy-lès-Lyon, France
,
Gilles Chaufferin
8  Boiron, 20 Rue de la Liberation, 69110 Sainte Foy-lès-Lyon, France
,
Flávio Dantas
9  Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil
,
Peter Fisher
5  Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, 60 Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3HR, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received13 March 2014
revised16 January 2015

accepted04 February 2015

Publication Date:
02 January 2018 (online)

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.