A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine.

Revista do Hospital das Clinicas Pub Date : 2003-11-01 Epub Date: 2004-01-28 DOI:10.1590/s0041-87812003000600007
Renan Moritz V Rodrigues Almeida
{"title":"A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine.","authors":"Renan Moritz V Rodrigues Almeida","doi":"10.1590/s0041-87812003000600007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.</p>","PeriodicalId":76453,"journal":{"name":"Revista do Hospital das Clinicas","volume":"58 6","pages":"324-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1590/s0041-87812003000600007","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista do Hospital das Clinicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s0041-87812003000600007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2004/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy.

Methodology: Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references.

Results: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely.

Conclusions: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.

对顺势疗法药物可能带来的益处的评论。
目的:评价近年来顺势疗法的研究进展。方法学:根据顺势疗法的临床研究对其进行评价;体外研究和物理基础。Medline数据库是本研究的主要参考来源,涉及近10年的数据。次要参考文献(本数据库中没有)是通过直接向主要参考文献中列出的作者请求获得的。结果:临床和体外实验均表明顺势疗法无效。由于这些研究的质量问题和缺乏适当的实验控制,一些有积极结果的研究受到质疑。最近关于这个话题的荟萃分析得出了负面的结果。之前为数不多的具有积极结果的荟萃分析之一存在严重的发表偏倚问题,其结果后来被主要作者重新考虑。有阳性结果的少量体外顺势疗法研究没有被独立研究人员重复,有严重的方法学缺陷,或者在重复时没有证实最初的阳性结果。顺势疗法作用的合理机制仍然不存在,到目前为止,它的配方似乎极不可能。结论:根据最近对顺势疗法的科学研究,可以得出结论,有充分的证据表明顺势疗法在科学上是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信