Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Med J Aust. 2010 Apr 19;192(8):458-60. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03585.x.
To evaluate the evidence for and against the effectiveness of homeopathy.
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (generally considered to be the most reliable source of evidence) was searched in January 2010.
Cochrane reviews with the term "homeopathy" in the title, abstract or keywords were considered. Protocols of reviews were excluded. Six articles met the inclusion criteria.
Each of the six reviews was examined for specific subject matter; number of clinical trials reviewed; total number of patients involved; and authors' conclusions. The reviews covered the following conditions: cancer, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, dementia, influenza and induction of labour.
The findings of the reviews were discussed narratively (the reviews' clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis).
The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.
评估顺势疗法有效性的证据。
2010 年 1 月，检索了 Cochrane 系统评价数据库（通常被认为是最可靠的证据来源）。
标题、摘要或关键词中含有“顺势疗法”一词的 Cochrane 综述被认为符合纳入标准。排除了综述的方案。有 6 篇文章符合纳入标准。
对这 6 篇综述的具体主题、所审查的临床试验数量、所涉及的总患者人数以及作者的结论进行了评估。这些综述涵盖了以下疾病：癌症、注意缺陷多动障碍、哮喘、痴呆、流感和引产。
对综述的结果进行了叙述性讨论（综述的临床和统计学异质性排除了荟萃分析）。
目前可用的 Cochrane 综述对顺势疗法研究的结果表明，顺势疗法药物的疗效并不优于安慰剂。
