A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals

BACKGROUND: Growing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the public sector is reflected in the scientific community by an increased number of research articles assessing its therapeutic effects. Some suggest that publication biases occur in mainstream medicine, and may also occur in CAM. Homeopathy is one of the most widespread and most controversial forms of CAM. The purpose of this study was to compare the representation of homeopathic clinical trials published in traditional science and CAM journals. METHODS: Literature searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), AMED and Embase computer databases. Search terms included "homeo-pathy, -path, and -pathic" and "clinical" and "trial". All articles published in English over the past 10 years were included. Our search yielded 251 articles overall, of which 46 systematically examined the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. We categorized the overall results of each paper as having either "positive" or "negative" outcomes depending upon the reported effects of homeopathy. We also examined and compared 15 meta-analyses and review articles on homeopathy to ensure our collection of clinical trials was reasonably comprehensive. These articles were found by inserting the term "review" instead of "clinical" and "trial". RESULTS: Forty-six peer-reviewed articles published in a total of 23 different journals were compared (26 in CAM journals and 20 in conventional journals). Of those in conventional journals, 69% reported negative findings compared to only 30% in CAM journals. Very few articles were found to be presented in a "negative" tone, and most were presented using "neutral" or unbiased language. CONCLUSION: A considerable difference exists between the number of clinical trials showing positive results published in CAM journals compared with traditional journals. We found only 30% of those articles published in CAM journals presented negative findings, whereas over twice that amount were published in traditional journals. These results suggest a publication bias against homeopathy exists in mainstream journals. Conversely, the same type of publication bias does not appear to exist between review and meta-analysis articles published in the two types of journals

A protocol for a trial of homeopathic treatment for irritable bowel syndrome

Background Irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic condition with no known cure. Many sufferers seek complementary and alternative medicine including homeopathic treatment. However there is much controversy as to the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. This three-armed study seeks to explore the effectiveness of individualised homeopathic treatment plus usual care compared to both an attention control plus usual care and usual care alone, for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Methods/design This is a three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial using the cohort multiple randomised trial methodology. Patients are recruited to an irritable bowel syndrome cohort from primary and secondary care using GP databases and consultants lists respectively. From this cohort patients are randomly selected to be offered, 5 sessions of homeopathic treatment plus usual care, 5 sessions of supportive listening plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary clinical outcome is the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity at 26 weeks. From a power calculation, it is estimated that 33 people will be needed for the homeopathic treatment arm and 132 for the usual care arm, to detect a minimal clinical difference at 80 percent power and 5 percent significance allowing for loss to follow up. An unequal group size has been used for reasons of cost. Analysis will be by intention to treat and will compare homeopathic treatment with usual care at 26 weeks as the primary analysis, and homeopathic treatment with supportive listening as an additional analysis. Discussion This trial has received NHS approval and results are expected in 2013. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN9065114

Dose-effect study of Gelsemium sempervirens in high dilutions on anxiety-related responses in mice

Introduction This study was designed to investigate the putative anxiolytic-like activity of ultra-low doses of Gelsemium sempervirens (G. sempervirens), produced according to the homeopathic pharmacopeia. Methods Five different centesimal (C) dilutions of G. sempervirens (4C, 5C, 7C, 9C and 30C), the drug buspirone (5 mg/kg) and solvent vehicle were delivered intraperitoneally to groups of ICR-CD1 mice over a period of 9 days. The behavioral effects were assessed in the open-field (OF) and light\u2013dark (LD) tests in blind and randomized fashion. Results Most G. sempervirens dilutions did not affect the total distance traveled in the OF (only the 5C had an almost significant stimulatory effect on this parameter), indicating that the medicine caused no sedation effects or unspecific changes in locomotor activity. In the same test, buspirone induced a slight but statistically significant decrease in locomotion. G. sempervirens showed little stimulatory activity on the time spent and distance traveled in the central zone of the OF, but this effect was not statistically significant. In the LD test, G. sempervirens increased the % time spent in the light compartment, an indicator of anxiolytic-like activity, with a statistically significant effect using the 5C, 9C and 30C dilutions. These effects were comparable to those of buspirone. The number of transitions between the compartments of the LD test markedly increased with G. sempervirens 5C, 9C and 30C dilutions. Conclusion The overall pattern of results provides evidence that G. sempervirens acts on the emotional reactivity of mice, and that its anxiolytic-like effects are apparent, with a non-linear relationship, even at high dilutions

THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2021/22: G protein-coupled receptors

The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2021/22 is the fifth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews, mostly in tabular format, of the key properties of nearly 1900 human drug targets with an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (www.guidetopharmacology.org), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide constitutes over 500 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website. It provides a permanent, citable, point-in-time record that will survive database updates. The full contents of this section can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/bph.15538. G protein-coupled receptors are one of the six major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading. The landscape format of the Concise Guide is designed to facilitate comparison of related targets from material contemporary to mid-2021, and supersedes data presented in the 2019/20, 2017/18, 2015/16 and 2013/14 Concise Guides and previous Guides to Receptors and Channels. It is produced in close conjunction with the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (NC-IUPHAR), therefore, providing official IUPHAR classification and nomenclature for human drug targets, where appropriate

The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2023/24: G protein-coupled receptors.

The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2023/24 is the sixth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews, mostly in tabular format, of the key properties of approximately 1800 drug targets, and about 6000 interactions with about 3900 ligands. There is an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (https://www.guidetopharmacology.org), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide constitutes almost 500 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website. It provides a permanent, citable, point-in-time record that will survive database updates. The full contents of this section can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/bph.16177. G protein-coupled receptors are one of the six major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading. The landscape format of the Concise Guide is designed to facilitate comparison of related targets from material contemporary to mid-2023, and supersedes data presented in the 2021/22, 2019/20, 2017/18, 2015/16 and 2013/14 Concise Guides and previous Guides to Receptors and Channels. It is produced in close conjunction with the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (NC-IUPHAR), therefore, providing official IUPHAR classification and nomenclature for human drug targets, where appropriate

Homeopathy for allergic rhinitis: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a global health problem that is often treated with homeopathy. The objective of this review will be to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS/DESIGN: The authors will conduct a systematic review. We will search Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, CAM-Quest, Google Scholar and reference lists of identified studies up to December 2013.The review will include randomized controlled trials that evaluate homeopathic treatment of allergic rhinitis. Studies with participants of all ages, with acute or chronic comorbidities will be included. Patients with immunodeficiency will not be included. The diagnosis will be based on the published guidelines of diagnosis and classification. Studies of all homeopathy modalities (clinical, complex and classical homeopathy, and isopathy) will be included. We will include trials with both active controls (conventional therapy, standard care) and placebo controls.The primary outcomes are: an improvement of global symptoms recorded in validated daily or weekly diaries and any scores from validated visual analogue scales; the total Quality of Life Score (such as the Juniper RQLQ);individual symptoms scores which include any appropriate measures of nasal obstruction, runny nose, sneezing, itching, and eye symptoms; and number of days requiring medication. Secondary outcomes selected will include serum immunoglobin E (IgE) levels, individual ocular symptoms, adverse events, and the use of rescue medication.Treatment effects will be measured by calculating the mean difference and the standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data. Risk ratio or, if feasible, odds ratio will be calculated with 95% CI for dichotomous data. After assessing clinical and statistical heterogeneity, meta-analysis will be performed, if appropriate. The individual participant will be the unit of analysis. Descriptive information on missing data will be included about participants missing due to drop out, whether there was intention to treat or per protocol analysis and missing statistics. A number of subgroups, homeopathic potency, age groups, and types of allergic rhinitis (seasonal or perennial) will be analyzed. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to explore the impact of risk of bias on overall treatment effect. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013006741

Homeopathy for allergic rhinitis: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a global health problem that is often treated with homeopathy. The objective of this review will be to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS/DESIGN: The authors will conduct a systematic review. We will search Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, CAM-Quest, Google Scholar and reference lists of identified studies up to December 2013.The review will include randomized controlled trials that evaluate homeopathic treatment of allergic rhinitis. Studies with participants of all ages, with acute or chronic comorbidities will be included. Patients with immunodeficiency will not be included. The diagnosis will be based on the published guidelines of diagnosis and classification. Studies of all homeopathy modalities (clinical, complex and classical homeopathy, and isopathy) will be included. We will include trials with both active controls (conventional therapy, standard care) and placebo controls.The primary outcomes are: an improvement of global symptoms recorded in validated daily or weekly diaries and any scores from validated visual analogue scales; the total Quality of Life Score (such as the Juniper RQLQ);individual symptoms scores which include any appropriate measures of nasal obstruction, runny nose, sneezing, itching, and eye symptoms; and number of days requiring medication. Secondary outcomes selected will include serum immunoglobin E (IgE) levels, individual ocular symptoms, adverse events, and the use of rescue medication.Treatment effects will be measured by calculating the mean difference and the standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data. Risk ratio or, if feasible, odds ratio will be calculated with 95% CI for dichotomous data. After assessing clinical and statistical heterogeneity, meta-analysis will be performed, if appropriate. The individual participant will be the unit of analysis. Descriptive information on missing data will be included about participants missing due to drop out, whether there was intention to treat or per protocol analysis and missing statistics. A number of subgroups, homeopathic potency, age groups, and types of allergic rhinitis (seasonal or perennial) will be analyzed. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to explore the impact of risk of bias on overall treatment effect. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013006741

Homeopathy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of homeopathic intervention in the treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis (AR). Method Randomized controlled trials evaluating all forms of homeopathic treatment for AR were included in a systematic review (SR) of studies published up to and including December 2015. Two authors independently screened potential studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included symptom improvement and total quality-of-life score. Treatment effect size was quantified as mean difference (continuous data), or by risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (dichotomous data), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Metaanalysis was performed after assessing heterogeneity and risk of bias. Results Eleven studies were eligible for SR. All trials were placebo-controlled except one. Six trials used the treatment approach known as isopathy, but they were unsuitable for meta-analysis due to problems of heterogeneity and data extraction. The overall standard of methods and reporting was poor: 8/11 trials were assessed as ‘‘high risk of bias’’; only one trial, on isopathy for seasonal AR, possessed reliable evidence. Three trials of variable quality (all using Galphimia glauca for seasonal AR) were included in the meta-analysis: nasal symptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks (RR = 1.48 [95% CI 1.24–1.77] and 1.27 [95% CI 1.10–1.46], respectively) favored homeopathy compared with placebo; ocular symptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks also favored homeopathy (RR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.33–1.80] and 1.37 [95% CI 1.21–1.56], respectively). The single trial with reliable evidence had a small positive treatment effect without statistical significance. A homeopathic and a conventional nasal spray produced equivalent improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms. Conclusions The low or uncertain overall quality of the evidence warrants caution in drawing firm conclusions about intervention effects. Use of either Galphimia glauca or a homeopathic nasal spray may have small beneficial effects on the nasal and ocular symptoms of AR. The efficacy of isopathic treatment of AR is unclear.</p