Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Medical Scientific Services/Medical Affairs, Deutsche Homöopathie-Union DHU-Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Jan;24(1):117-142. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2266136. Epub 2024 Jan 18.
Likewise other medical interventions, economic evaluations of homeopathy contribute to the evidence base of therapeutic concepts and are needed for socioeconomic decision-making. A 2013 review was updated and extended to gain a current overview.
A systematic literature search of the terms 'cost' and 'homeopathy' from January 2012 to July 2022 was performed in electronic databases. Two independent reviewers checked records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.
Six studies were added to 15 from the previous review. Synthesizing both health outcomes and costs showed homeopathic treatment being at least equally effective for less or similar costs than control in 14 of 21 studies. Three found improved outcomes at higher costs, two of which showed cost-effectiveness for homeopathy by incremental analysis. One found similar results and three similar outcomes at higher costs for homeopathy. CHEC values ranged between two and 16, with studies before 2009 having lower values (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 3.4) than newer studies (9.4 ± 4.3).
Although results of the CHEC assessment show a positive chronological development, the favorable cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatments seen in a small number of high-quality studies is undercut by too many examples of methodologically poor research.
与其他医学干预措施一样,顺势疗法的经济评估有助于治疗概念的证据基础,并需要用于社会经济决策。对 2013 年的一篇综述进行了更新和扩展,以获得当前的概述。
从 2012 年 1 月到 2022 年 7 月,在电子数据库中使用“成本”和“顺势疗法”这两个术语进行了系统的文献搜索。两名独立的审查员使用共识健康经济标准 (CHEC) 清单检查记录、提取数据并评估研究质量。
在之前的综述中添加了六项研究。综合健康结果和成本表明,在 21 项研究中有 14 项研究表明,与对照组相比,顺势疗法的治疗效果至少相当,成本更低或相似。有三项研究发现成本更高时效果更好,其中两项通过增量分析显示顺势疗法具有成本效益。一项研究发现了类似的结果,三项研究发现成本更高时顺势疗法的结果也类似。CHEC 值在 2 到 16 之间,2009 年之前的研究值(均值 ± 标准差:6.7 ± 3.4)低于较新的研究(9.4 ± 4.3)。
尽管 CHEC 评估的结果显示出积极的时间发展,但在少数高质量研究中观察到的顺势疗法治疗的有利成本效益被太多方法学较差的研究削弱了。