Milazzo Stefania, Russell Nancy, Ernst Edzard
Department of Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Institute of Health and Social Care, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, United Kingdom.
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Feb;42(3):282-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.09.025. Epub 2006 Jan 11.
Many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches to increase their body's ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and emotional well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or conventional treatments. Homeopathy is highly controversial as there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. We have searched the literature using the databases: Amed (from 1985); CINHAL (from 1982); EMBASE (from 1974); Medline (from 1951); and CAMbase (from 1998). Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer receiving single or combined homeopathic interventions were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad score. Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.
许多癌症患者采用顺势疗法来增强身体对抗癌症的能力，改善身体和情绪健康状况，并减轻因疾病或传统治疗产生的疼痛。顺势疗法极具争议性，因为这些高度稀释的药物没有合理的作用方式。本系统评价的目的是总结并批判性地评估顺势疗法药物作为癌症治疗的单一疗法或辅助疗法的疗效。我们使用以下数据库检索了文献：Amed（始于1985年）；CINHAL（始于1982年）；EMBASE（始于1974年）；Medline（始于1951年）；以及CAMbase（始于1998年）。纳入了随机和非随机对照临床试验，这些试验的患者为癌症患者或有癌症既往史，接受单一或联合顺势疗法干预。试验的方法学质量通过Jadad评分进行评估。六项研究符合我们的纳入标准（五项为随机临床试验，一项为非随机研究）；但方法学质量参差不齐，包括一些高标准的研究。我们对已发表的顺势疗法文献分析发现，没有足够证据支持顺势疗法在癌症治疗中的临床疗效。
