Table 7 Interventions, metric of main outcome, trial resultsa
Meta-analysis | Linde (1997) [6] | Linde (1998) [7] | Cucherat (2000) [8] | Shang (2005) [9] | Mathie (2014) [10] | Mathie (2017) [11] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N trials | 85 | Â | 22 | Â | 17 | Â | 110 | Â | 22 | Â | 54 | Â |
Homoeopathic intervention | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
Individualised | 13 | 14.6% | 18 | 100.0% | 3 | 17.6% | 18 | 16.4% | 22 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Non-individualised | ||||||||||||
 Clinical homoeopathy | 49 | 55.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 12 | 70.6% | 48 | 43.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 23 | 42.6% |
 Complex homoeopathy | 20 | 22.5% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 5.9% | 35 | 31.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 24 | 44.4% |
 Isopathy | 7 | 7.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 5.9% | 8 | 7.3% | 0 | 0.0% | 7 | 13.0% |
 Unclear | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
High potencies only (≥ C12)? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 31 | 34.8% | 7 | 38.9% | 5 | 29.4% | No data | 8 | 36.4% | 21 | 38.9% | |
No | 58 | 65.2% | 3 | 16.7% | 8 | 47.1% | No data | 9 | 40.9% | 33 | 61.1% | |
Unclear | 0 | 0.0% | 8 | 44.4% | 4 | 23.5% | No data | 5 | 22.7% | 0 | 0.0% | |
Metric of main outcome | ||||||||||||
Binary | 74 | 83.1% | 16 | 88.9% | No data | No data | 16 | 72.7% | 23 | 42.6% | ||
Continuous or rank-ordered | 15 | 16.9% | 2 | 11.1% | No data | No data | 6 | 27.3% | 31 | 57.4% | ||
Trial results | ||||||||||||
HOM > PLAC significant | 38 | 42.7% | 6 | 33.3% | 11 | 64.7% | 40 | 36.4% | 3 | 13.6% | 15 | 27.8% |
HOM > PLAC not significant | 37 | 41.6% | 8 | 44.4% | 3 | 17.6% | 51 | 46.4% | 12 | 54.5% | 26 | 48.1% |
PLAC > HOM not significant | 14 | 15.7% | 4 | 22.2% | 3 | 17.6% | 18 | 16.4% | 7 | 31.8% | 13 | 24.1% |
PLAC > HOM significant | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |