A randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. Homeopathy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a pilot randomized-controlled trial. The feasibility of a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of homeopathic treatment of depression in general practice. [Homeopathic specialties as substitutes for benzodiazepines: double-blind vs. placebo study]. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture. Individual differences in response to randomly assigned active individualized homeopathic and placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded optional crossover design. Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial of 68 patients [see comment]. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of classical homeopathy in generalized anxiety disorder. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial Immunology and Homeopathy. 4. Clinical Studies—Part 1 Randomized controlled trials on treatment by homeopaths and self-treatment with homeopathic medicines: design and protocol. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. Evaluation of specific and non-specific effects in homeopathy: feasibility study for a randomised trial. Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions. Homeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non-local, or placebo process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study. Magnitude of the placebo effect in randomized trials of antiepileptic agents Does the non-randomized controlled study have a place in the systematic review? A pilot study.
OBJECTIVE There is no management regime for chronic fatigue syndrome ( CFS ) that has been found to be universally beneficial and no treatment can be considered a " cure " . Patients with CFS may use complementary and alternative medicine ( CAM ) . Our aim was to evaluate homeopathic treatment in reducing subjective symptoms of CFS . METHOD Using a triple-blind design ( patient and homeopath blind to group assignment and data analyst blind to group until after initial analyses to reduce the possibility of bias due to data analyst ) , we r and omly assigned patients to homeopathic medicine or identical placebo .  One hundred and three patients meeting the Oxford criteria for CFS were recruited from two specialist hospital out patient departments . Patients had monthly consultations with a professional homeopath for 6 months . Main outcome measures were scores on the subscales of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory ( MFI ) and proportions of each group attaining clinical ly significant improvements on each subscale . Secondary outcome measures were the Fatigue Impact Scale ( FIS ) and the Functional Limitations Profile ( FLP ) .  Ninety-two patients completed treatment in the trial ( 47 homeopathic treatment , 45 placebo ) . Eighty-six patients returned fully or partially completed posttreatment outcome measures ( 41 homeopathic treatment group who completed treatment , 2 homeopathic treatment group who did not complete treatment , 38 placebo group who completed treatment , and 5 placebo group who did not complete treatment ) . RESULTS Seventeen of 103 patients withdrew from treatment or were lost to follow-up . Patients in the homeopathic medicine group showed significantly more improvement on the MFI general fatigue subscale ( one of the primary outcome measures ) and the FLP physical subscale but not on other subscales . Although group differences were not statistically significant on four out of the five MFI subscales ( the primary outcome measures ) , more people in the homeopathic medicine group showed clinical ly significant improvement . More people in the homeopathic medicine group showed clinical improvement on all primary outcomes ( relative risk=2.75 , P=.09 ) . CONCLUSIONS There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo . Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation . Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger sample OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to carry out a preliminary trial evaluating the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) . DESIGN This work was a r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial . SETTING S/LOCATION This study was conducted in a private homeopathic clinic in the Seattle metropolitan area . SUBJECTS Subjects included children 6 - 12 years of age meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition ( DSM-IV ) criteria for ADHD . INTERVENTIONS Forty-three subjects were r and omized to receive a homeopathic consultation and either an individualized homeopathic remedy or placebo . Patients were seen by homeopathic physicians every 6 weeks for 18 weeks . OUTCOME MEASURES Outcome measures included the Conner 's Global Index-Parent , Conner 's Global Index- Teacher , Conner 's Parent Rating Scale-Brief , Continuous Performance Test , and the Clinical Global Impression Scale . RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between homeopathic remedy and placebo groups on the primary or secondary outcome variables . However , there were statistically and clinical ly significant improvements in both groups on many of the outcome measures . CONCLUSIONS This pilot study provides no evidence to support a therapeutic effect of individually selected homeopathic remedies in children with ADHD . A therapeutic effect of the homeopathic encounter is suggested and warrants further evaluation . Future studies should be carried out over a longer period of time and should include a control group that does not receive the homeopathic consultation . Comparison to conventional stimulant medication for ADHD also should be considered UNLABELLED Depression is common in general practice and lack of concordance is an important problem in its treatment . Homeopathy has few side effects and is generally associated with good compliance . We report a study investigating the feasibility of a trial to compare the effectiveness of homeopathy with a conventional antidepressant and placebo . OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility of a general practice -based clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment vs Fluoxetine ( Prozac ) vs placebo in the treatment of major depressive episodes of moderate severity . DESIGN R and omised , double-dummy , double-blind parallel group clinical trial . SETTING Lower Clapton Group Practice , East London . METHOD Patients were recruited through their general practitioners as they presented during a 9 month period . Recruitment target was 30 patients . Eligibility was confirmed by a consultant psychiatrist using st and ard criteria ( DSM-IV ) and instruments Hamilton Depression Scale ( HAMD ) . Suicidal and psychotic patients were excluded , additional pre caution s against suicide were incorporated . There was a 1 week run-in period and patients showing spontaneous improvement were excluded . Homeopathic treatment was prescribed by a GP qualified in homeopathy , from a ' limited list ' of 30 homeopathic medicines , with the help of decision support software . Patients were r and omised to receive verum Fluoxetine and placebo homeopathy , or verum homeopathy and placebo Fluoxetine , or placebo homeopathy and placebo Fluoxetine . Treatment duration was 12 weeks . The outcomes were : adverse drug reactions , clinical global impression ( CGI ) ; HAMD ; mini international psychiatric Interview ; Pittsburgh sleep quality index ; Side-effects checklist ; Short Form 12 ; treatment credibility question naire ; work and social disability scale . The primary outcome measures were HAMD and CGI . RESULTS A recruitment calculation indicated that over 230 suitable patients would be expected to attend the practice during the recruitment phase . Thirty one patients were referred for possible inclusion in the trial by their GPs . Twenty three met the entry criteria , 11 were r and omised and 6 completed the study . Of the completers , one received homeopathy , 2 placebo and 3 Fluoxetine . CONCLUSIONS A trial of this design in general practice is not feasible , because of recruitment difficulties , many of them linked to patient preference . Different approaches are required to recruit adequate patient numbers to trials of this sort The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of  homeopathic drugs Homéogène 46 and Sédatif PC with a placebo as substitute for benzodiazepines in patients treated for at least 3 months with low doses ( less than 10 mg/d of diazepam equivalents ) . A double-blind r and omized trial was carried out in general practice . The treatment lasted one month . Several rating scales were used . The main outcome was success/failure defined according to the doctor 's clinical judgement and interruption of treatment . A total of 61 patients were r and omized , and 19 interrupted their treatment . Comparability between the groups was good . No statistically significant difference between homeopathic drugs and placebo was observed for the main outcome or for the secondary outcomes . The lack of statistical power due to accrual difficulties limits the conclusions of this trial which did not confirm the efficacy of homeopathic drugs in this indication BACKGROUND To investigate the method ological quality of r and omized controlled trials in three areas of complementary medicine . METHODS The method ological quality of 207 r and omized trials collected for five previously published systematic review s on homeopathy , herbal medicine  ( Hypericum for depression , Echinacea for common cold ) , and acupuncture ( for asthma and chronic headache ) was assessed using a vali date d scale ( the Jadad scale ) and single quality items . RESULTS While the method ological quality of the trials was highly variable , the majority had important shortcomings in reporting and /or methodology . Major problems in most trials were the description of allocation concealment and the reporting of drop-outs and withdrawals . There were relevant differences in single quality components between the different complementary therapies : For example , acupuncture trials reported adequate allocation concealment less often ( 6 % versus 32 % of homeopathy and 26 % of herb trials ) , and trials on herbal extracts had better summary scores ( mean score 3.12 versus 2.33 for homeopathy and 2.19 for acupuncture trials ) . Larger trials published more recently in journals listed in Medline and in English language scored significantly higher than trials not meeting these criteria . CONCLUSION Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant method ological weaknesses . The type of weaknesses varies considerably across interventions OBJECTIVE To assess individual difference characteristics of subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia ( FM ) patients with respect to the decision to stay in or switch from r and omly-assigned verum or placebo treatment during an optional crossover phase of a double-blinded homeopathy study . DESIGN Double-blinded , r and omized , placebo-controlled , optional crossover clinical trial . PARTICIPANTS Fifty-three ( 53 ) community-recruited patients with FM entered the optional crossover phase . INTERVENTION Two homeopaths jointly selected an individualized homeopathic remedy for all patients . The pharmacy dispensed either verum LM remedy or indistinguishable placebo in accord with r and omized assignment for 4 months and the patient 's optional crossover decision for an additional 2 months . OUTCOME MEASURES Patients completed a battery of baseline state/trait question naires , including mood , childhood neglect and abuse , and trait absorption . They rated global health ( whole person-centered ) and tender point pain on physical examination ( disease-specific ) at baseline , 3 months , and 6 months . RESULTS Rates of optional crossover from verum to placebo or placebo to verum were comparable ( p = 0.6 ; 31 % , and 41 % , respectively ) . The switch subgroups had greater baseline psychologic issues ( emotional neglect in placebo-switch ; depression and anger in verum-switch ) . The verum-stay subgroup scored highest on treatment helpfulness and included all six exceptional responders who fell , prior to crossover , into the top terciles for improvement in both global health and pain . Patients staying in their r and omly assigned groups , active or placebo ( n = 34 ) , scored significantly higher in trait absorption than did those who switched groups ( n = 19 ) . CONCLUSION Individual difference factors may predict better and poorer responders with FM to specific and nonspecific effects of homeopathic and placebo treatment To evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in preventing migraine attacks and accompanying symptoms , a r and omised , double-blind , placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted . There was a one-month registration period without treatment , followed by four months individualised homeopathic treatment or identical placebo .  Patients were stratified for common or classical migraine . Seventy-three patients were r and omised , 68 completed the trial . Baseline values were similar in the two groups . Both the homeopathy and placebo groups had reduction in attack frequency , pain intensity and drug consumption , with a statistically non-significant difference favouring homeopathy . Migraine diaries showed no difference between groups . The neurologists ' trial evaluation showed a statistically significant reduction in attack frequency in the homeopathy group ( P= 0.04 ) and non-statistically significant trends in favour of homeopathy for pain intensity and overall evaluation . Further research , with improved trial design , on the possible role of homeopathy in migraine prophylaxis is justified BACKGROUND Homeopathy is commonly used for the treatment of medical and psychological conditions . Such prevalent use , however , is not supported by robust , method ologically sound research . This study evaluates the effect of homeopathic treatment in generalized anxiety disorder , a prevalent mental disorder characterized by an enduring pattern of excessive apprehension and distress and by mental and bodily complaints . METHOD Forty-four patients with DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder participated in a r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled 10-week trial of individually tailored homeopathic remedy . Homeopathic therapy was administered by an expert who followed the traditional routines of homeopathic diagnosis and prescription . Thirty-nine subjects completed the study ( 20 in the active treatment group and 19 in the placebo group ) . Subjects ' symptoms were rated before treatment and after 5 and 10 weeks of treatment , with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety ( HAM-A ) as main outcome measure . Additional measures of outcome included the Brief Symptom Inventory , the Psychological General Well-Being Index , the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression , the Beck Depression Inventory , Spielberger 's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory , and a Visual Analogue Scale of subjective distress . RESULTS Significant ( p < .05 ) improvement in most measures , including the HAM-A , was observed in both the active treatment and placebo groups , yet no group effect was observed . CONCLUSION The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo . The improvement in both conditions was substantial . Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice An increasing number of parents turn to homeopathy for treatment of their hyperactive child . Two publications , a r and omised , partially blinded trial and a clinical observation study , conclude that homeopathy has positive effects in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) . The aim of this study was to obtain scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in ADHD . A total of 83 children aged 6–16 years , with ADHD diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria , were recruited . Prior to the r and omised , double blind , placebo controlled crossover study , they were treated with individually prescribed homeopathic medications .  62 patients , who achieved an improvement of 50 % in the Conners ’ Global Index ( CGI )  , participated in the trial . Thirteen patients did not fulfill this eligibility criterion ( CGI ) . The responders were split into two groups and received either verum for 6 weeks followed by placebo for 6 weeks ( arm A ) , or vice-versa ( arm B ) . At the beginning of the trial and after each crossover period , parents reported the CGI and patients underwent neuropsychological testing . The CGI rating was evaluated again at the end of each crossover period and twice in long-term follow-up . At entry to the crossover trial , cognitive performance such as visual global perception , impulsivity and divided attention , had improved significantly under open label treatment ( P<0.0001 ) . During the crossover trial , CGI parent – ratings were significantly lower under verum ( average 1.67 points ) than under placebo ( P = 0.0479 ) . Long-term CGI improvement reached 12 points ( 63 % , P < 0.0001 ) . Conclusion : The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder , particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions The evidence -based research of the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines in common immunologic disorders is review ed . In part 1 , we introduce method ological issues of clinical research in homeopathy , and criteria utilized to evaluate the literature . Then 24 studies ( 12 r and omized and 12 non-r and omized ) on common upper respiratory tract infections and otorhinolaryngologic complaints  are described . In part 2 , the focus will be on allergic diseases and the effectiveness of homeopathy will be globally evaluated and discussed using the criteria of evidence -based medicine BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE This study investigates ( 1 ) whether treatment by homeopaths is more efficacious than self-selected conventional health care and ( 2 ) whether self-treatment with self-selected homeopathic medicines is more efficacious than placebo in preventing childhood upper respiratory tract infections ( URTIs ) . DESIGN A four-arm r and omized controlled trial involving two independent investigations , one open and pragmatic ( evaluating the effect of treatment by homeopaths including homeopathic medicines ) and one double-blinded ( evaluating the effect of self-treatment with homeopathic medicine ) . PATIENTS The planned sample size is 420 children below the age of 10 , recruited by a postal invitation to all children diagnosed with URTIs when attending a casualty department in Trondheim , Norway . INTERVENTIONS The children are r and omly assigned to receive either ( 1 ) self-selected homeopathic medicine or placebo ( 270 patients ) , ( 2 ) treatment by one of four different homeopaths who could prescribe any homeopathic medicine ( 75 patients ) , or ( 3 ) waiting list control using self-selected conventional health care ( 75 patients ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Total URTI symptom scores from patients ' diary over 12 weeks . PLAN : The results of these two studies ( available at the end of 2004 ) have the potential to provide information about the efficacy of treatment by homeopaths independently from the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in children with URTIs BACKGROUND Recent meta-analyses of r and omized controlled trials in homeopathy have suggested that homeopathy is more than a placebo response . OBJECTIVE Comparison of the effectiveness of homeopathy in primary care with conventional medicine in primary care for three commonly encountered clinical conditions . DESIGN An international multicenter , prospect i ve , observational study in a real world medical setting comparing the effectiveness of homeopathy with conventional medicine . PARTICIPANTS Thirty ( 30 ) investigators with conventional medical licenses at six clinical sites in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least one of the following three complaints : ( 1 ) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies ; ( 2 ) lower respiratory tract complaints including allergies ; or ( 3 ) ear complaints . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcomes criterion was the response to treatment , defined as cured or major improvement after 14 days of treatment . Secondary outcomes criteria were : ( 1 ) rate of recovery ; ( 2 ) occurrence of adverse events ; ( 3 ) patient satisfaction ; and ( 4 ) length of consultation . RESULTS Four hundred and fifty-six ( 456 ) patient visits were compared : 281 received homeopathy  , 175 received conventional medicine .  The response to treatment as measured by the primary outcomes criterion for patients receiving homeopathy was 82.6 % , for conventional medicine it was 68 % . Improvement in less than 1 day and in 1 to 3 days was noted in 67.3 % of the group receiving homeopathy and in 56.6 % of those receiving conventional medicine . The adverse events for those treated with conventional medicine was 22.3 % versus 7.8 % for those treated with homeopathy . Seventy-nine percent ( 79.0 % ) of patients treated with homeopathy were very satisfied and 65.1 % of patients treated with conventional , medicine were very satisfied . In both treatment groups 60 % of cases had consultations lasting between 5 and 15 minutes . CONCLUSIONS Homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional medical care in the treatment of patients with the three conditions studied OBJECTIVE To determine the feasibility , in terms of acceptability to patients , physicians and other staff ; data return and statistical power of a study to eluci date the relative contributions of specific and non-specific effects in homeopathic treatment of dermatitis . DESIGN R and omised , controlled 4-arm trial , 2 arms double-blind . SETTING Outpatient clinic , Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital . PARTICIPANTS Seventy-five adult patients with dermatitis . INTERVENTIONS Patients were r and omly allocated to : ' fast track ' open verum homeopathy , ' fast track ' double-blind verum homeopathy , ' fast track ' double-blind placebo homeopathy or waiting list control . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES One hundred millimeter visual analogue scale of overall symptom severity ; 10 point digital scores of sleep , itching , skin condition ; weekly 5-point Likert scale of topical steroid use ; Dermatology Life Quality Index at entry and completion . RESULTS Recruitment was below target , but the study was acceptable to staff and feasible . Blinded patients were more likely to withdraw ( P=0.021 , chi2 test ) . After correction for baseline differences and multiple comparisons , no outcome measure showed statistically significant between group differences . Blindness appeared to have a negative effect , but this was confounded by differential withdrawal . CONCLUSIONS A definitive trial of this design is unlikely to discriminate the relative contributions of the non-specific and specific effects to the outcome of homeopathic treatment of dermatitis , because of patient preference issues OBJECTIVE The extent of disagreement between large and smaller r and omized , controlled trials on mental health issues is unknown . The authors aim ed to compare the results of large versus smaller trials on mental health-related interventions . METHOD The authors screened 161 Cochrane and 254 Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effectiveness systematic review s on mental health-related interventions . They identified 16 meta-analyses with at least one " large " r and omized trial with sample size > 800 and at least one " smaller " trial .  Effect sizes were calculated separately for large and smaller trials . Heterogeneity was assessed between all studies , within each group ( large and smaller studies ) , and between large and smaller studies . RESULTS Significant between- study heterogeneity was seen in five meta-analyses . By r and om-effects calculations , the results of large and smaller trials differed beyond chance in four meta-analyses ( 25 % ) . In three of these disagreements ( effect of day care on IQ , discontinuation of antidepressants , risperidone versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia ) , the smaller trials showed greater effect sizes than the large trials . The inverse was seen in one case ( olanzapine versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia ) . With fixed-effects models , disagreements beyond chance occurred in five cases ( 31 % ) . In four meta-analyses , the effect size differed over twofold between large and smaller trials . Various quality and design parameters were identified as potential explanations for some disagreements . CONCLUSIONS Large trials are uncommon in mental health . Their results are usually comparable with the results of smaller studies , but major disagreements do occur . Both large and smaller trials should be scrutinized as they offer a continuum of r and omized evidence BACKGROUND Homeopathic pathogenetic trials ( HPTs ) ( provings ) are the pillar of homeopathy . Symptoms experienced by healthy volunteers are used to find the correct medicine for therapy . It is unclear whether these symptoms are specific or due to placebo noise . Furthermore , it is uncertain whether proving effects , if present at all , are due to a local or non-local process OBJECTIVES To develop a test model which allows for testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by placebo or causative mechanisms , and if these symptoms are due to local or non-local processes . DESIGN R and omised , blinded , placebo-controlled , parallel-group study , with 1-week baseline and 2-weeks proving period . SUBJECTS 11 healthy volunteers from two different homeopathic schools . PROVING SUBSTANCE : An homeopathic medicine ( Cantharis 30c ) , blindly chosen from 12 potential medicines , compared to placebo . OUTCOME MEASURE Number of symptoms typical for the medicine in the experimental and control group during baseline and proving period . RESULTS During baseline there was no difference in the number of typical or atypical symptoms in either group . During the proving period , both more typical symptoms for Cantharis ( P= 0.03 ) and more atypical symptoms ( P= 0.02 ) were observed compared to baseline . Between-group differences were not significant . Effect sizes for the difference between the proving and control group for typical symptoms was d=0.4 , and for atypical symptoms d=0.6 . DISCUSSION This proving model could be valuable in study ing the validity of proving symptoms of homeopathic substances in healthy volunteers . CONCLUSION Homeopathic proving symptoms appear to be specific to the medicine and do not seem to be due to a local process . Since this was a pilot study using a small number of provers , rival hypotheses can not be ruled out and the study needs replication Placebo-controlled r and omized trials ideally produce unbiased estimates of the treatment effect after accounting for nonpharmacological effects ( regression to the mean , Hawthorne , and placebo effects ) . Recognizing that the magnitude of these effects may help underst and why investigators need to control for them , we sought to measure this magnitude . We review ed published meta-analyses of r and omized , placebo-controlled add-on trials of antiepileptic medications versus placebo , included in the Cochrane Library . In r and omized trials of antiepileptic agents for epilepsy , 9.3 - 16.6 % of patients in the placebo arm had a > 50 % reduction in seizure frequency . This effect represents 20 - 50 % of the effect observed with active agents . Because patients with epilepsy in the placebo arm of r and omized trials experience a large clinical benefit due to nonpharmacological effects , r and omized controlled trials are necessary to gauge the true magnitude of the treatment effect of new antiepileptic agents BACKGROUND A major issue in any systematic review is deciding which trials or studies to include and which to exclude . The Cochrane Collaboration and similar respected organizations have traditionally viewed the r and omized trial ( RCT ) as the only acceptable evidence on treatment outcome . However , many systematic review s are indeterminate because they include insufficient RCTs whilst they reject large numbers of non-r and omized controlled studies . This is particularly true in forensic mental health , a domain where RCT methodology can be problematic . Systematic review s could become more informative if review ers knew when , and under what circumstances , non-r and omized design s are acceptable for inclusion alongside RCTs . METHOD This pilot study explores whether good- quality , controlled , non-r and omized studies can be reliable surrogates for RCTs . We examined two published review s from the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group . We compared outcomes between ( a )  r and omized trials  ( that had been included ) and non-r  and omized studies  ( that had been excluded ) , and ( b ) between high- and low- quality studies using an established quality checklist  . RESULTS In the first review , effect scores were similar for r and omized and non-r and omized studies and relatively insensitive to study quality . In the second review , the treatment effect was considerably lower for the RCT group - here , however , studies of high- quality showed much smaller effect scores than those of low- quality on two separate outcomes . CONCLUSIONS Non-r and omized controlled studies of high quality can produce outcomes that approximate to those found in RCTs . Trial quality may have a greater impact on treatment effect size than r and omization alone , suggesting that r and omization should not be seen as a reliable proxy for overall quality . The problems and issues still to be resolved are discussed with recommendations for future research
Efficacy was found for the functional somatic syndromes group ( fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome ) , but not for anxiety or stress .
For other disorders , homeopathy produced mixed effects .
Meaningful safety data were lacking in the reports , but the superficial findings suggested good tolerability of homeopathy .
OBJECTIVE To systematic ally review  placebo-controlled r and omized trials of  homeopathy for psychiatric conditions .