Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editor's Choice

Keep libel laws out of science

BMJ 2009; 339 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2783 (Published 09 July 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2783

Rapid Response:

Re: Literature reviews and meta-analysis in homeopathy

This thread seems to have become colonised by homeopaths and
homeopathy, so does risk deviating from its original purpose. However,
Petter
Viksveen's commentary on cherry-picking really does demand a response
given that it perpetuates one of the most egregious examples of that very
thing.

Linde's (1997) (1) meta-analysis seems very close to the heart of
many
homeopaths, but less often do we see citations for Linde's (1999) re-
analysis
of their previous data (2). Viksveen has conformed to that pattern by
omitting
the later paper.

Here is a quotation from the 1999 paper;

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original
meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search
in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials
have been published. The fact that a number of the new
high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a
recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype
of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy
[16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials
have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that
our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of
homeopathic treatments." [original bibliographical citations retained, 7
represents their own 1997 paper]

While homeopaths have lined up here to demand a fair representation
of their
literature, I would dearly like Viksveen to explain why he did not mention

Linde's (1999) work and properly reflect upon its results.

Furthermore, and in response to William Alderson (3), where there is
sufficient evidence from well-controlled trials that a given therapy is
useless,
nothing can be gained by continuing to appeal to "clinical observation",
we
already know all that is being observed clinically are placebo responses
and
spontaneous changes. This,
after all, is pretty much why controlled trial methodologies were
developed in
the first place: to sift real therapeutic effects from coincidence and
wishful-
thinking..

1. Klaus Linde, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart,
Florian Eitel,
Larry V. Hedges, and Wayne B. Jonas. Are the clinical effects of
homoeopathy
placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. The Lancet
350 (9081) 834-843 (1997)

2. Klaus Linde, Michael Scholz, Gilbert Ramirez, Nicola Clausius,
Dieter
Melchart, and Wayne B. Jonas. Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in
Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52 (7) 631-
636
(1999)

3. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2783#217596

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

26 July 2009
Simon J Baker
Veterinary Surgeon
House & Jackson Veterinary Surgeons, Blackmore, Essex, CM4 0LE