title: A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The quality of information gathered from homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs), also known as 'provings', is fundamental to homeopathy. We systematically reviewed HPTs published in six languages (English, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Dutch) from 1945 to 1995, to assess their quality in terms of the validity of the information they provide.
  
  
  METHODS
  The literature was comprehensively searched, only published reports of HPTs were included. Information was extracted by two reviewers per trial using a form with 87 items. Information on: medicines, volunteers, ethical aspects, blinding, randomization, use of placebo, adverse effects, assessments, presentation of data and number of claimed findings were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed by an index including indicators of internal and external validity, personal judgement and comments of reviewers for each study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  156 HPTs on 143 medicines, involving 2815 volunteers, produced 20,538 pathogenetic effects (median 6.5 per volunteer). There was wide variation in methods and results. Sample size (median 15, range 1-103) and trial duration (mean 34 days) were very variable. Most studies had design flaws, particularly absence of proper randomization, blinding, placebo control and criteria for analysis of outcomes. Mean methodological score was 5.6 (range 4-16). More symptoms were reported from HPTs of poor quality than from better ones. In 56% of trials volunteers took placebo. Pathogenetic effects were claimed in 98% of publications. On average about 84% of volunteers receiving active treatment developed symptoms. The quality of reports was in general poor, and much important information was not available.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required.
  References to all included RCTs are available on-line at.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil. dantasfla@gmail.com
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Dantas
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Fisher
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Walach
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Wieland
authors.forename: D P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Rastogi
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Teixeira
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Koster
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Jansen
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Eizayaga
authors.forename: M E P
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Alvarez
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Marim
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Belon
authors.forename: L L M
authors.initials: LL
authors.lastname: Weckx
mesh_terms: D006705:Homeopathy / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008419:Materia Medica / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical
chemical_list: D008419:Materia Medica