Homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis

doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7279.169

BMJ 2001;322:169 ( 20 January )

Letters

Homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis

Statistics in study were flawed

Study shows dissociation between objective and subjective responses to homoeopathy in allergic rhinitis

Study shows double standards in evaluation of homoeopathy

Results of study were not convincingly in favour of homoeopathy

Did patients really have allergic rhinitis?

Authors' reply

Statistics in study were flawed

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Taylor et al come to the conclusion that their study of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis "hasfailed to confirm our original hypothesis that homeopathy is aplacebo."¹ Unfortunately, the statistics do not provethat.

The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation that required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis with a 5% significanceand an 80% power.² In fact, the authors only recruited 51 patientsbut analysed the results as if they had the required number. Theironly conclusion was that they did not have enough data to makeaconclusion.

If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations? The power calculationis only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80% theP value becomes 34%. The only conclusion is that the trial isnot able to proveanything.

Barry Miller, consultant anaesthetist.
Royal Oldham Hospital, Oldham OL1 2JH barry.miller@bigfoot.com

Competing interests: Nonedeclared.

1.	Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series [with commentary by T Lancaster, A Vickers]. BMJ 2000; 321: 471-476[Abstract/Free Full Text]. (19-26 August.)
2.	Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986; ii: 881-886.

Study shows dissociation between objective and subjective responses to homoeopathy in allergic rhinitis

EDITOR $---$ Taylor et al . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series • Commentary: Larger trials are needed: Morag A Taylor, David Reilly, Robert H Llewellyn-Jones, Charles McSharry, Tom C Aitchison, Tim Lancaster, and Andrew Vickers
BMJ 2000 321: 471-476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Charlton, B.G. (2002). Randomized trials in alternative/complementary medicine. QJM 95: 643-645 [Full text]
Lewith, G T, Watkins, A D, Hyland, M E, Shaw, S, Broomfield, J A, Dolan, G, Holgate, S T (2002). Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 324: 520-520 [Abstract] [Full text]