Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Brien, Sarah; Lachance, Laurie; Prescott, P.; McDermott, Clare; Lewith, George

doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keq234

Cited by 117 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Five RCTs (12%) (54,65,79,80,86) reported homeopathic aggravations four of these also reported adverse effects. One hundred and seven participants experienced a total of 158 homeopathic aggravations, 91 in the treatment groups and 67 in the control groups.…”

Section: Homeopathic Aggravationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights:• This review address the naive assumption that because of the generally diluted doses used homeopathy must be safe• This review touches the neglected issue of the distinction between homeopathic aggravation, adverse reactions and adverse effects• We found a similar risk for homeopathic treatment compared to controls such as placebo and conventional medicine. Words: 5,187 Abstract ObjectivesHomeopathy is a popular treatment modality among patient, however there is sparse research about adverse effects of homeopathy. A concept unique for homeopathy, is homeopathic aggravation that is understood as a transient worsening of the patients' symptoms before an 2 expected improvement occurs. From a risk perspective it is vital that a distinction between homeopathic aggravations and adverse effects is established. There is a lack of systematic information on how frequent adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations are reported in studies. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Design and settingSixteen electronic databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The searches were limited from the year 1995 to January 2011. Forty-one RCTs, with a total of 6.055 participants were included. A subtotal of 39 studies was included in the additional metaanalysis. ResultsA total of 28 trials (68%) reported adverse effects and five trials (12%) reported homeopathic aggravations. The meta-analysis (including six subgroup comparisons) demonstrated that no significant difference was found between homeopathy and control with OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14, I 2 = 54%. More than two third of the adverse effects were classified as grade 1 (68%) and two third were classified as grade 2 (25%) and grade 3 (6%) according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects. Homeopathic aggravation was classified as grade 1 (98%) and grade 3 (2%), suggesting that homeopathic aggravations were reported to be less severe than adverse effects. The methodological quality according to a method recommended in the Cochrane handbook for RCTs, was high. ConclusionAdverse effects including the concept of homeopathic aggravations are commonly reported in trials. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects to be similar for patients randomized to homeopathic treatment compared to patients randomized to placebo and conventional medicine.

show abstract

Section: Homeopathic Aggravationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Homeopathic treatment was also demonstrated to prevent the development of eating disorders in other cases (Dehn, 2012). In addition to the remedy that is given, the extended benefits of homeopathy as a treatment option for binge eaters may include the following: (i) the nature of the homeopathic consultation is therapeutic in itself (Brien, Lachance, Prescott, McDermott, & Lewith, 2011); (ii) the relationship that develops between a doctor and a patient may assist in encouraging and empowering patients to continue with the treatment; and (iii) the aim of homoeopathic treatment is to treat patients holistically, on a mental, emotional and physical level, while also taking contributing factors and the aetiology of the condition into account (Dehn, 2012). …”

Section: Individualised Homeopathic Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case studies on the homeopathic treatment of binge eating in adult males

Razlog

Pellow

Patel

et al. 2016

Health SA Gesondheid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many thousands of patients die each year due to medical errors or other adverse events related to conventional medical treatments 22,23 While, in each case, these are disutilities, it does not necessarily follow that this makes either form of practice unethical let alone disreputable or illegitimate. Further, even where a therapy has no proven benefit -but may carry some harm -as is 17 Brien, S., et al 2011. Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.…”

Section: The Claims Of Harm and The Failure To Seek Effective Carementioning

confidence: 99%

A Gentle Ethical Defence of Homeopathy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is 'unethical.' They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics; misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths and have an impoverished idea of ethics -one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships, or for the perspectives, values and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation -a type of moral calculus -quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and healthcare. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care, and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.

show abstract

Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract: Current controlled trials, http://www.controlled-trials.com/, ISRCTN09712705.

Cited by 117 publications

References 39 publications

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Case studies on the homeopathic treatment of binge eating in adult males

A Gentle Ethical Defence of Homeopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About