Veterinary homeopathy: Systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised trials controlled by other than placebo

Abstract

BackgroundNo systematic review has previously been carried out on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy in which the control group was an intervention other than placebo (OTP). For eligible peer-reviewed RCTs, the objectives of this study were to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic intervention compared with an active comparator or with no treatment.MethodsOur systematic review approach complied fully with the PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Cochrane methods were applied to assess RoB and to derive effect size using standard meta-analysis methods. Based on a thorough and systematic literature search, the following key attributes of the published research were distinguished: individualised homeopathy (n = 1 RCT)/non-individualised homeopathy (n = 19); treatment (n = 14)/prophylaxis (n = 6); active controls (n = 18)/untreated controls (n = 2). The trials were highly diverse, representing 12 different medical conditions in 6 different species.ResultsNo trial had sufficiently low RoB to be judged as reliable evidence: 16 of the 20 RCTs had high RoB; the remaining four had uncertain RoB in several domains of assessment. For three trials with uncertain RoB and without overt vested interest, it was inconclusive whether homeopathy combined with conventional intervention was more or was less effective than conventional intervention alone for modulation of immune response in calves, or in the prophylaxis of cattle tick or of diarrhoea in piglets.ConclusionDue to the poor reliability of their data, OTP-controlled trials do not currently provide useful insight into the effectiveness of homeopathy in animals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12917-015-0542-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine

“…The key elements of this type of question are the population (P), intervention (I), comparison group (C), and outcome(s) (O); thus, review questions for interventions are often referred to by the acronym PICO (or PICOS, if the study design also is identified as a component of the review question). Examples of systematic reviews addressing intervention questions include the efficacy of porcine Circovirus type 2 vaccines in piglets (32), surgical treatments for cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs (33), and veterinary homeopathy (34). Intervention studies usually report a metric of intervention effect compared across groups such as an odds ratio, hazard ratio, risk ratio, mean difference, or standardized mean difference.…”

Reproductive efficiency of nellore (Bos indicus) cows subject to both ftai and homeopathic supplementation

“…Under such context, homeopathy became a widespread practice in organic farming (HEKTOEN, 2005;LIMA et al, 2016). Homeopathy approaches have also been used in numerous species to treat different diseases by replacing antibiotics, anti-diarrheic, and antihelminthics products NARESH, 2005;CHAGAS et al, 2008;SOTO et al, 2008;WERNER et al, 2010;MATHIE;CLAUSEN, 2015;DOEHRING;SUNDRUM, 2016;ORJALES et al, 2016).…”

Comparative effectiveness of individualised homeopathy and antibiotics in the treatment of bovine clinical mastitis: randomised controlled trial

“…However, when repeating such clinical trials, particular attention should be paid to the study quality. Other authors [15][16][17] also noted the low number and quality of studies available and strongly indicated new and substantially improved research in both individualised and non-individualised veterinary homeopathy. The present study could contribute to extending current knowledge on the effectiveness of homeopathy by creating one additional high-quality RCT.…”