Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication

Table 8 Risk of bias (methodological quality) of trials: criteria used in ≥ 2 meta-analyses

Quality component	Linde (1997) [6]		Linde (1998) [7]		Cucherat (2000) [8]		Shang (2005) [9]		Mathie (2014) [10]		Mathie (2017) [11]		All MA
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
1. Generation of allocation sequence adequate^a	64	72	15	83	17	100	27	25	11	50	19	35	153	49
2. Allocation concealment adequate	34	38	9	50	17	100	49	45	6	27	9	17	124	40
3. Double-blinding adequate^b	81	91	18	100	16	94	101	92	15	68	25	46	256	83
4. Dropout handling adequate / ITT analysis / complete outcome data	28	31	6	33	ND	ND	33	30	9	41	20	37	96	33
5. No selective outcome reporting	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	19	86	40	74	59	78
6. Primary outcome measure stated	21	24	7	39	17	100	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	45	36
7. Journal article	76	85	16	89	15	88	94	85	22	100	54	100	277	89
8. Peer-reviewed^c journal article	23	26	10	56	ND	ND	45	41	22	100	54	100	154	53
9. No funding-related vested interest	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	4	18	11	20	15	20
10. No other risk of bias	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	13	59	26	48	39	51
High-quality trials	26	29	ND	ND	ND	ND	21	19	3	14	3	6	53	19
Total trials	89	100	18	100	17	100	110	100	22	100	54	100	310	100

MA meta-analyses, ITT intention to treat, ND no data
^aLinde (1999) [30]: explicitly randomised
^bMathie (2014 and 2017) [10, 11]: ‘Blinding of participants and study personnel’ and ‘Blinding of evaluators’ were assessed separately
^cLinde (1997) [6] and Shang [9] : Medline-indexed

ISSN: 2046-4053