Pilkington K, Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Fisher P, Richardson J
Research Council for Complementary Medicine, London, UK.
Homeopathy. 2005 Jul;94(3):153-63. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2005.04.003.
To systematically review the research evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of depression and depressive disorders.
A comprehensive search of major biomedical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Specialist complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) databases including AMED, CISCOM and Hom-Inform were also searched. Additionally, efforts were made to identify unpublished and ongoing research using relevant sources and experts in the field. Relevant research was categorised by study type and appraised according to study design. Clinical commentaries were obtained for studies reporting clinical outcomes.
Only two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. One of these, a feasibility study, demonstrated problems with recruitment of patients in primary care. Several uncontrolled and observational studies have reported positive results including high levels of patient satisfaction but because of the lack of a control group, it is difficult to assess the extent to which any response is due to specific effects of homeopathy. Single-case reports/studies were the most frequently encountered clinical study type. We also found surveys, but no relevant qualitative research studies were located.: Adverse effects reported appear limited to 'remedy reactions' ('aggravations') including temporary worsening of symptoms, symptom shifts and reappearance of old symptoms. These remedy reactions were generally transient but in one study, aggravation of symptoms caused withdrawal of the treatment in one patient.
A comprehensive search for published and unpublished studies has demonstrated that the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in depression is limited due to lack of clinical trials of high quality. Further research is required, and should include well-designed controlled studies with sufficient numbers of participants. Qualitative studies aimed at overcoming recruitment and other problems should precede further RCTs. Methodological options include the incorporation of preference arms or uncontrolled observational studies. The highly individualised nature of much homeopathic treatment and the specificity of response may require innovative methods of analysis of individual treatment response.
系统评价顺势疗法治疗抑郁症及抑郁障碍的有效性的研究证据。
对包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和Cochrane图书馆在内的主要生物医学数据库进行全面检索。还检索了包括AMED、CISCOM和Hom-Inform在内的专业补充和替代医学(CAM)数据库。此外,还通过相关来源和该领域专家努力识别未发表和正在进行的研究。相关研究按研究类型分类,并根据研究设计进行评估。获取了报告临床结果的研究的临床评论。
仅识别出两项随机对照试验(RCT)。其中一项是可行性研究,显示在初级保健中招募患者存在问题。几项非对照和观察性研究报告了阳性结果,包括患者满意度较高,但由于缺乏对照组,难以评估任何反应在多大程度上归因于顺势疗法的特定效果。单病例报告/研究是最常遇到的临床研究类型。我们还发现了调查,但未找到相关的定性研究。报告的不良反应似乎仅限于“药物反应”(“加重”),包括症状暂时恶化、症状转移和旧症状重现。这些药物反应通常是短暂的,但在一项研究中,症状加重导致一名患者停止治疗。
对已发表和未发表研究的全面检索表明,由于缺乏高质量的临床试验,顺势疗法治疗抑郁症有效性的证据有限。需要进一步研究,应包括设计良好、有足够数量参与者的对照研究。在进一步的随机对照试验之前,应先进行旨在克服招募和其他问题的定性研究。方法选项包括纳入偏好组或非对照观察性研究。许多顺势疗法治疗的高度个体化性质和反应的特异性可能需要创新的个体治疗反应分析方法。