Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2000 Aug 19-26;321(7259):471-6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7259.471.

Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis With Overview of Four Trial Series

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Clinical Trial

Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis With Overview of Four Trial Series

M A Taylor et al. BMJ. .
Free PMC article

Erratum in

  • BMJ 2000 Sep 23;321(7263):733

Abstract

Objective: To test the hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo by examining its effect in patients with allergic rhinitis and so contest the evidence from three previous trials in this series.

Design: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre study.

Setting: Four general practices and a hospital ear, nose, and throat outpatient department.

Participants: 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Intervention: Random assignment to an oral 30c homoeopathic preparation of principal inhalant allergen or to placebo.

Main outcome measures: Changes from baseline in nasal inspiratory peak flow and symptom visual analogue scale score over third and fourth weeks after randomisation.

Results: Fifty patients completed the study. The homoeopathy group had a significant objective improvement in nasal airflow compared with the placebo group (mean difference 19.8 l/min, 95% confidence interval 10.4 to 29.1, P=0.0001). Both groups reported improvement in symptoms, with patients taking homoeopathy reporting more improvement in all but one of the centres, which had more patients with aggravations. On average no significant difference between the groups was seen on visual analogue scale scores. Initial aggravations of rhinitis symptoms were more common with homoeopathy than placebo (7 (30%) v 2 (7%), P=0.04). Addition of these results to those of three previous trials (n=253) showed a mean symptom reduction on visual analogue scores of 28% (10.9 mm) for homoeopathy compared with 3% (1.1 mm) for placebo (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 15.4, P=0.0007).

Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recruitment of patients and their progress through the trial
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean (SE) weekly change from baseline in nasal inspiratory peak flow
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overview and pooled analysis of four trials of homoeopathic immunotherapy
Figure 4
Figure 4
Effect of homoeopathic immunotherapy and placebo on visual analogue scale scores averaged over four trials

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 15 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Feedback