Department of Medicine and Surgery, Institute of Public Health, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Terme di Monticelli, Parma, Italy.
Health Soc Care Community. 2019 Jul;27(4):824-847. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12681. Epub 2018 Nov 19.
Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review. Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way.
顺势疗法应用广泛,使用者声称从中受益。然而,目前尚无确切证据表明其疗效优于安慰剂。因此,顺势疗法使用者与主流医学之间存在社会隔离,使这些患者面临许多风险。我们的主要目标是通过系统地回顾现有的系统评价和荟萃分析,评估顺势疗法的疗效,并对开放标签安慰剂(OLP)治疗的试验进行系统回顾。次要目标是了解是否可以将顺势疗法整体视为安慰剂治疗。我们系统地检索了 PubMed/Medline、Embase、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Library 中关于顺势疗法疗效的系统评价和荟萃分析,并纳入了 61 项研究。我们还系统地检索了包含 Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) 的数据库,以查找关于 OLP 治疗的随机对照试验(RCT),并纳入了 10 项研究。数据库检索截至 2018 年 2 月 24 日。两位作者独立筛选所有检索到的文章,并选择符合纳入标准的研究。在第一次评价中,使用专门的 NIH 工具评估纳入研究的系统评价的质量,在第二次评价中,使用特定的 Cochrane 工具评估纳入研究的试验的偏倚风险。定性综合表明,顺势疗法的疗效可被认为与安慰剂相当,而 OLP 治疗可能对某些健康状况有效。安慰剂效应(如安慰剂本身、治疗环境、医患关系和其他非特异性因素)可以定义安慰剂治疗的概念,而这种治疗在某些情况下可能有效。如果顺势疗法的疗效与安慰剂相当,并且安慰剂治疗在某些情况下可能有效,那么顺势疗法作为一个整体可能被视为安慰剂治疗。将顺势疗法重新解释为安慰剂治疗将定义这种做法的局限性和可能性。这种视角的转变为管理寻求顺势疗法治疗的患者并以可持续的方式将其与主流医学协调提供了一种策略。