Evidência Cientifica para a homeopatia
[Página retirada da campanha 10:23]
Meta-análise – é uma técnica estatística desenvolvida para integrar os resultados de dois ou mais estudos, sobre uma mesma questão de pesquisa.
Revisão sistemática – método sistemático utilizado para encontrar e avaliar críticamente todas as evidências científicas disponíveis sobre uma questão de pesquisa.
“All analyses were performed using meta-regression methods. Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. ”
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy Agosto de 1999
“ There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”
“There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. This will help to establish to what extent people respond to a ‘package of care’ rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.”
“HOMEOPATHY: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma. Further studies could assess whether individuals respond to a “package of care” rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.”
“Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”
A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy Dezembro de 2002
Análise sistemática com quadro síntese dos problemas encontrados em vários estudos:
“Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice”
Homeopathy for Childhood and Adolescence Ailments Janeiro 2007
The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.
Análise da “melhor” evidência para a homeopatia.
“The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.”