NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

NHMRC Draft Information Paper: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions submission

ID: 
11
Personal Details
First Name: 
Luke
Last Name: 
Buizen
Questions
Q1. Is the draft Information Paper presented and written in a manner that is easy to understand?: 

Mostly, 2 possible changes include

1. In the Overview Report; making sure "Study ID/Systematic Review" tables are consistently in the format of column/row or row/column. For instance, on pg. 29 of the overview report, Study ID is the column label, while on pg. 45, Study ID is the row label. 

2. In the Review of Submitted evidence; on pg. 15 "Adler et al, 2009" is given a SIGN Evidence Level of "1+". On pg. 16, table 5 claims  "Adler et al, 2009" is given a SIGN Evidence Level of "1++". 

 

Q2. Does the draft Information Paper clearly outline how the evidence was reviewed and interpreted by the Homeopathy Working Committee?: 

Yes. In retrospect, the limitations and research gap as discussed on pg. 285-287 of the Overview report show an overall poor job performed by the researchers into homeopathy. In addition to majority of the evidence not seeming compelling, many studies had poor blinding/sample size, and many trial co-ordinators/systematic reviewers produced poor papers which would have masked any legitimate results, if they were present.

Q3. Is there additional evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of clinical conditions in humans that needs to be considered? To be considered in public consultation any additional evidence must:: 

Not that I'm aware.

Page reviewed: 11 March, 2015