A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy. METHODOLOGY: Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references. RESULTS: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.

Role of complementary therapies in the understanding of primary healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Objective To identify the understanding of the healthcare professionals in relation to the role of complementary therapies in primary health care. Method Systematic review by way of the following information sources: PubMed, CINAHL, PeriEnf, AMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Psicoinfo and Psicodoc, using the keyword Primary Health Care alone, and associated with the following keywords: Medicinal Plants, Herbal Medicine, Homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Acupuncture, Anthroposophical Medicine. Results Twenty-two studies from 1986 to 2011 were included. We identified three styles of practice: conventional medicine, complementary therapies and integrative medicine. Positioning professional practices within these three styles may facilitate discussion of concepts of health care, enhancing the health care provided as a result. Conclusion The work process in primary care presents difficulties for conducting integrative and holistic health care, but this practice has been introduced over time by professionals who integrate conventional medicine and complementary therapies, concerned with the care and well-being of patients.