Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1232893394 by Slaythe (talk) Neither of these are used in homeopathy |
→Efficacy: Added citation quantifying degree of bias in homeopathy studies. Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
Line 468:
In 2009, the United Kingdom's [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] Science and Technology Committee concluded that there was no compelling evidence of effect other than placebo.<ref name="inquiry_cfm">UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee. [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/homeopathy-/ "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"]</ref> The Australian [[National Health and Medical Research Council]] completed a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations in 2015, in which it concluded that "there were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective."<ref name="NHMRC2">{{cite book|author1=National Health and Medical Research Council|url=https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02|title=NHMRC statement on homeopathy and NHMRC information paper – Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions|date=2015|publisher=National Health and Medical Research Council|isbn=978-1-925129-29-8|location=Canberra|page=16|quote=There is no reliable evidence that homoeopathy is effective for treating health conditions.|author1-link=National Health and Medical Research Council|access-date=August 18, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170419065845/https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02|archive-date=April 19, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC) published its official analysis in 2017 finding a lack of evidence that homeopathic products are effective, and raising concerns about quality control.<ref name="EASAC2017">{{cite web|date=September 2017|title=Homeopathic products and practices: assessing the evidence and ensuring consistency in regulating medical claims in the EU|url=http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/EASAC_Homepathy_statement_web_final.pdf|access-date=1 October 2017|work=European Academies' Science Advisory Council|page=1|quote=... we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.}}</ref> In contrast a 2011 book was published, purportedly financed by the Swiss government, that concluded that homeopathy was effective and cost efficient.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bonhöft|first1=Gudrun|title=Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs.|last2=Matthiessen|first2=Peter|publisher=Springer|year=2012}}</ref> Although hailed by proponents as proof that homeopathy works,<ref name="ShawMisconduct2">{{cite journal|author=Shaw, David|date=May 2012|title=The Swiss report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct|journal=Swiss Medical Weekly|volume=142|pages=w13594|doi=10.4414/smw.2012.13594|pmid=22653406|doi-access=free}}</ref> it was found to be scientifically, logically and ethically flawed, with most authors having a [[conflict of interest]].<ref name="ShawMisconduct2" /> The [[Swiss Federal Office of Public Health]] later released a statement saying the book was published without the consent of the Swiss government.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Gurtner, Felix|date=December 2012|title=The report "Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs" is not a "Swiss report"|journal=Swiss Medical Weekly|volume=142|pages=w13723|doi=10.4414/smw.2012.13723|pmid=23255156|doi-access=free}}</ref>
[[Meta-analysis|Meta-analyses]], essential tools to summarize evidence of therapeutic efficacy,<ref name="PRISMA2">{{cite journal|last1=Liberati|first1=A|last2=Altman|first2=DG|last3=Tetzlaff|first3=J|last4=Mulrow|first4=C|last5=Gøtzsche|first5=PC|last6=Ioannidis|first6=J PA|last7=Clarke|first7=M|last8=Devereaux|first8=PJ|last9=Kleijnen|first9=J|last10=Moher|first10=D|year=2009|title=The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=6|issue=7|pages=e1000100|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100|pmc=2707010|pmid=19621070|doi-access=free}}</ref> and [[systematic review]]s have found that the methodological quality in the majority of randomized trials in homeopathy have shortcomings and that such trials were generally of lower quality than trials of conventional medicine.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jonas|first1=WB|last2=Anderson|first2=RL|last3=Crawford|first3=CC|last4=Lyons|first4=JS|date=2001|title=A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials|journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine|volume=1|page=12|doi=10.1186/1472-6882-1-12|pmc=64638|pmid=11801202 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="pmid114160762">{{cite journal|last1=Linde|first1=K|last2=Jonas|first2=WB|last3=Melchart|first3=D|last4=Willich|first4=S|year=2001|title=The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture|journal=International Journal of Epidemiology|volume=30|issue=3|pages=526–31|doi=10.1093/ije/30.3.526|pmid=11416076|author-link1=Klaus Linde|doi-access=free}}</ref> A major issue has been [[publication bias]], where positive results are more likely to be published in journals.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Jeffrey D. Scargle|year=2000|title=Publication Bias: The "file-drawer problem" in scientific inference|url=http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf|journal=[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]]|volume=14|issue=2|pages=94–106|arxiv=physics/9909033|bibcode=1999physics...9033S|access-date=January 19, 2011|archive-date=January 22, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122021757/http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=February 2020}}<ref name="pmid160607222">{{cite journal|last1=Ioannidis|first1=John P. A.|year=2005|title=Why most published research findings are false|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=2|issue=8|pages=e124|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124|pmc=1182327|pmid=16060722 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="pmid18258002">{{cite journal|last1=Kleijnen|first1=J|last2=Knipschild|first2=P|last3=Ter Riet|first3=G|year=1991|title=Clinical trials of homoeopathy|journal=BMJ|volume=302|issue=6772|pages=316–23|doi=10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316|pmc=1668980|pmid=1825800}}</ref> This has been particularly marked in alternative medicine journals, where few of the published articles (just 5% during the year 2000) tend to report [[null result]]s.<ref name="Goldacre20072" /> A systematic review of the available systematic reviews confirmed in 2002 that higher-quality trials tended to have less positive results, and found no convincing evidence that any homeopathic preparation exerts clinical effects different from placebo.<ref name="pmid124926032" /> The same conclusion was also reached in 2005 in a meta-analysis published in ''The Lancet''. A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis found that the most reliable evidence did not support the effectiveness of non-individualized homeopathy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mathie|first1=Robert T.|last2=Ramparsad|first2=Nitish|last3=Legg|first3=Lynn A.|last4=Clausen|first4=Jürgen|last5=Moss|first5=Sian|last6=Davidson|first6=Jonathan R. T.|last7=Messow|first7=Claudia-Martina|last8=McConnachie|first8=Alex|date=March 24, 2017|title=Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis|journal=Systematic Reviews|volume=6|issue=1|page=63|doi=10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3|issn=2046-4053|pmc=5366148|pmid=28340607 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Health organizations, including the UK's [[National Health Service]],<ref name="nhs_choices2">{{cite web|title=Health A-Z -- Homeopathy|url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx|access-date=April 22, 2013|publisher=National Health Service}}</ref> the [[American Medical Association]],<ref name="amapseudo2">{{cite web|author=AMA Council on Scientific Affairs|year=1997|title=Alternative medicine: Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97)|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090614085504/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml|archive-date=June 14, 2009|access-date=March 25, 2009|publisher=[[American Medical Association]]}}</ref> the [[FASEB]],<ref name="Weissmann2">{{cite journal|last1=Weissmann|first1=G|year=2006|title=Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales|journal=The FASEB Journal|volume=20|issue=11|pages=1755–58|doi=10.1096/fj.06-0901ufm|pmid=16940145|s2cid=9305843|doi-access=free}}</ref> and the [[National Health and Medical Research Council]] of Australia,<ref name="NHMRC2" /> have issued statements saying that there is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.<ref name="nhs_choices2" /> In 2009, [[World Health Organization]] official [[Mario Raviglione]] criticized the use of homeopathy to treat [[tuberculosis]]; similarly, another WHO spokesperson argued there was no evidence homeopathy would be an effective treatment for [[Diarrhea|diarrhoea]].<ref>{{cite news|date=August 20, 2009|title=Homeopathy not a cure, says WHO|work=BBC News|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8211925.stm|access-date=October 20, 2014}}</ref> They warned against the use of homeopathy for serious conditions such as [[Major depressive disorder|depression]], [[HIV/AIDS|HIV]] and [[malaria]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mashta|first=O|date=August 24, 2009|title=WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases|journal=BMJ|volume=339|issue=aug24 2|pages=b3447|doi=10.1136/bmj.b3447|pmid=19703929|s2cid=9303173}}</ref> The [[American College of Medical Toxicology]] and the [[American Academy of Clinical Toxicology]] recommend that no one use homeopathic treatment for disease or as a preventive health measure.<ref name="toxicfive2">{{cite web|author1=American College of Medical Toxicology|author1-link=American College of Medical Toxicology|author2=American Academy of Clinical Toxicology|author2-link=American Academy of Clinical Toxicology|date=February 2013|title=Five things physicians and patients should question|url=http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-college-of-medical-toxicology-and-the-american-academy-of-clinical-toxicology/|access-date=December 5, 2013|work=[[Choosing Wisely]]: an initiative of the [[ABIM Foundation]]|publisher=American College of Medical Toxicology and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology}}, which cites {{cite journal|last1=Woodward|first1=KN|date=May 2005|title=The potential impact of the use of homeopathic and herbal remedies on monitoring the safety of prescription products|journal=Human & Experimental Toxicology|volume=24|issue=5|pages=219–33|doi=10.1191/0960327105ht529oa|pmid=16004184|bibcode=2005HETox..24..219W |s2cid=34767417}}</ref> These organizations report that no evidence exists that homeopathic treatment is effective, but that there is evidence that using these treatments produces harm and can bring indirect health risks by delaying conventional treatment.<ref name="toxicfive2" />
| |||