To summarise the data from all trials of classic homoeopathy versus allopathic medications.

The author searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Library, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Library databases (dates of search and keywords used are not reported). Reference lists of retrieved articles were also searched and experts were invited to contribute further articles. Previous reviews were obtained and their reference lists searched. There were no language restrictions.

Study designs of evaluations included in the review

Comparative trials where participants were treated with classical individualised homoeopathy versus allopathic treatments. Trials of non-individualised homoeopathy were excluded.

Specific interventions included in the review

Classic homoeopathy (individualised homoeopathic prescriptions based on the 'like cure like' principle) or allopathic remedies (oral salicyclates, salazopyrine plus aspirin, dicylomine hydrochloride, dietary measures, chloroquine, antibiotics, penicillin) or placebo.

Participants included in the review

Adults and children with a variety of illnesses (rheumatoid arthritis, proctocolitis, irritable bowel disease, malaria, otitis media or tonsillitis).

Outcomes assessed in the review

Clinical outcomes (e.g. improvements) are stated as the outcome measure for each illness included in the review, but further details of the outcome measures are not stated.

How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?

The author does not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the reviewers performed the selection.

The author does not report the method used to assess quality, or how the quality assessment was performed.

The author does not state who extracted the data for the review. However, they do state that data was extracted in a pre-defined standardised fashion.

How were the studies combined?

The studies have been combined in a narrative review which very briefly describes the characteristics of each study and whether the overall outcome favoured homoeopathy or allopathic remedies.

How were differences between studies investigated?

The author does not state how differences between the studies were investigated.

Six studies met the inclusion criteria with 633 participants. Only 2 studies reported the number of participants split into treatment and control groups (132 treatment, 50 control). Three of the trials were randomised (2 of which were also double-blind), and 3 of the trials were non-randomised (of which 2 studies allowed the participants to choose between the treatment or control options).

Two of the six studies (both non-randomised) suggest that homoeopathic remedies are superior to conventional drug therapy. Two trials suggest the opposite. The remaining 2 studies suggest both interventions to be equally effective (or ineffective).

Only few comparative clinical trials of homoeopathy exist. None is free from serious methodological flaws. Thus the value of individualised homoeopathy relative to allopathic treatments is unknown.

The author has listed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and has searched several databases for relevant material. It is not clear however whether additional studies may have been missed because unpublished reports were not included.

The author has not reported on how the articles were selected, or how the quality of the chosen studies was assessed. There is also no report as to who, or how many, selected the articles and extracted the data. The data from each study is described in a very subjective narrative review which gives very little detail about each study. There is no discussion about the heterogeneity between the studies which include a wide range of participants and treatments. As the author admits, the results from these studies should be viewed with great caution.

The author did not state any implications for further research and practice.

This is a critical abstract of a systematic review that meets the criteria for inclusion on DARE. Each critical abstract contains a brief summary of the review methods, results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the review and the conclusions drawn.