少即是多：顺势疗法与巴赫花精疗法的比较。
When less is better: a comparison of Bach Flower Remedies and homeopathy.
机构信息
Department of Anthropology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA.
出版信息
Ann Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;20(4):298-307. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.11.006. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
PURPOSE
Homeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs), historically-related complementary healing modalities classified as prescription/nonprescription drugs and over-the-counter homeopathic nutritional supplements, respectively, are compared with respect to indications, dosage philosophies, associated procedures, reported outcomes, safety profiles, and the possible operation of the placebo effect.
METHODS
Original data and published research reports, including case studies, retrospective meta-analyses, and double-blind clinical trials are compiled and evaluated for both healing systems.
RESULTS
Homeopathy and BFR therapy both feature highly diluted natural medicinal substances, flexible dosage schedules tailored to individual patients, and energy-based healing action. They differ with respect to practitioner training and certification, number and types of medicinal source materials, remedy combinations and applications, and potential toxicity or other side-effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Extensive testing has produced mixed or equivocal results regarding the efficacy of both of these health care systems. While a variety of positive outcomes have been frequently recorded with Homoeopathy and BFR treatments, it is likely that the placebo effect operates to a significant extent in both approaches.
目的
顺势疗法和 Bach 花疗（BFR）是两种历史上相关的补充治疗方法，分别被归类为处方/非处方药和非处方顺势营养补充剂。本研究比较了这两种方法在适应证、剂量理念、相关程序、报告结果、安全性概况以及安慰剂效应的可能作用方面的差异。
方法
编译并评估了这两种治疗系统的原始数据和已发表的研究报告，包括病例研究、回顾性荟萃分析和双盲临床试验。
结果
顺势疗法和 Bach 花疗都采用高度稀释的天然药物，根据个体患者的情况灵活调整剂量，并采用基于能量的治疗方法。这两种方法在从业者的培训和认证、药用原料的数量和类型、药物组合和应用以及潜在的毒性或其他副作用方面存在差异。
结论
对这两种医疗系统的疗效进行了广泛的测试，但结果喜忧参半。虽然经常记录到顺势疗法和 Bach 花疗治疗的各种积极结果，但这两种方法都可能在很大程度上受到安慰剂效应的影响。
Zotero 插件