Homeopathy

Mixed results with no consistent evidence of efficacy beyond placebo. Some individual studies show benefit, but better-controlled trials yield null results. A 2017 systematic review found that statistically significant effects disappeared when limited to reliable evidence trials.

RCTs comparing homeopathy to active comparators or placebo show inconsistent results. Methodologically stronger studies show no significant benefit. Observational studies without controls provide weak evidence.

One RCT reported significant reduction in flu episodes, but high dropout rate, lack of intention-to-treat analysis, and unvalidated outcome measures raise concerns about reliability.

One open-label RCT showed small improvements versus usual care, but effects were below minimal clinically important difference and lacked blinding. Meta-analysis showed no difference vs placebo in properly controlled trials.

Small but statistically significant effects found in meta-analysis of 4 RCTs for tender points, pain, and fatigue. However, studies had methodological limitations and conclusions were deemed preliminary by authors.

Meta-analysis of individualized homeopathy trials found OR 1.53 favoring homeopathy over placebo. However, only 3 of 32 trials met 'reliable evidence' criteria, and 29/32 had unclear or high risk of bias. Quality of evidence was rated MODERATE for all homeopathy and HIGH for individualized homeopathy by 2023 systematic review.

Meta-analysis found homeopathy significantly reduced time to first flatus after surgery, but only for low-potency remedies (<12C). Higher potencies (≥12C) showed no effect.