"The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials"
R. Lüdtke a, and A.L.B. Rutten b
aKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany bCommissie Methode en Validering, Artsenvereniging voor homeopathie VHAN (Association of Dutch homeopathic physicians), Breda, The Netherlands
Shang's recently published meta-analysis on homeopathic remedies (Lancet) based its main conclusion on a subset of eight larger trials out of 21 high quality trials out of 110 included trials.
We performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials.
Subsets were defined according to sample size, type of homeopathy, type of publication, and treated disease/condition. For each subset, we estimated the overall odds ratios (ORs) from random effect meta-analyses.
All trials were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 62.2%). Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.59–0.99; p = 0.039). When the set of analyzed trials was successively restricted to larger patient numbers, the ORs vary moderately (median: 0.82, range: 0.71–1.02) and the P-values increased steadily (median: 0.16, range: 0.03–0.93), including Shang's results for the eight largest trials (OR = 0.88, CI: 0.66–1.18; P = 0.41).
Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial on preventing muscle soreness in N = 400 long-distance runners.
The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite as they had been presented.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Posted, October 2008 (in press)
|Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training.|
This site is like an Encyclopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics.
Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.