What has scientific research found out about whether homeopathy works?
This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials.
The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.
Related posts: