Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


'Don’t dismiss the role of complementary therapy in healthcare'


Complementary therapies are a valuable adjunct to conventional medicine, argues Dr Charlotte Mendes da Costa

Mark Radcliffe’s article “If only a rub down with rose petals could cure ill health”, which was in response to researchers at Bournemouth University who suggested nurses are best placed to integrate complementary therapy into the NHS, not only highlights the inflexible and entrenched viewpoint of those opposed to complementary therapy, but also their failure to engage in serious intellectual debate on the subject.

While saying he has no wish to give the impression of rushing to judgement, he does precisely that by stating that “most clinical trials seem to suggest that not only do these interventions not work but also there are no such things as elves”. Ignoring his facetious schoolboy humour, this is the argument frequently expressed in the media and medical press - an argument that ignores the facts.

As a GP working in the NHS and a trained homeopath I believe I’m far better qualified to comment on this particular therapy and its usefulness for patients.

“I integrate homeopathy into my practice, using it when I feel it is appropriate for the patient and have seen quite remarkable results”

First, there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy. Up to the end of 2010, 156 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy had been carried out with 41% reporting positive effects, whereas only 7% have been negative. The remainder were non-conclusive. Furthermore, four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions. No doubt opponents of homeopathy will dispute these figures, but then again these self-appointed arbiters of what is correct clinical practice will dispute any research evidence supporting homeopathy and other complementary therapies.

Mr Radcliffe does concede the popularity of complementary therapy, but then fails to examine the reasons for this popularity. The public are drawn to therapies such as homeopathy because they have found that they work. And after all, people are not stupid; if something is ineffective it quickly loses the public’s endorsement. Patient satisfaction - something all healthcare professionals should be seeking to achieve - is consistently high in surveys carried out at the NHS homeopathic hospitals in London, Bristol and Glasgow.

I integrate homeopathy into my practice, using it when I feel it is appropriate for the patient and have seen quite remarkable results. I have no doubt complementary therapies are a valuable adjunct to conventional medicine and that the people best placed to integrate these therapies into mainstream healthcare are nurses.

Nurses trained in the benefits and appropriateness of different complementary interventions would be able to inform patients of the most suitable therapy for their conditions, be it homeopathy, herbal medicine, reflexology or acupuncture. Just as importantly they would be able to advise patients when complementary therapy is not the best form of treatment and that conventional therapy should be used.

In Europe complementary therapy is even more popular than it is here in the UK and has been incorporated into the health systems of France, Germany and Italy. And while this modern approach to healthcare is anathema to those who have never trained in complementary therapy, let alone used one to treat patients, interest among healthcare professionals is growing.

The benefits that complementary therapy can bring to the health service need to be discussed. Sadly, in using heavy sarcasm to scornfully dismiss complementary therapies Mr Radcliffe misses the opportunity to encourage such a discussion.

Dr Charlotte Mendes da Costa is a GP in Chiswick, west London


Readers' comments (72)

  • I agree with this absolutely, but like I said in another post, I wish 'complimentary therapy' wouldn't be used as an umbrella term for so many diverse treatments. Some of these treatments are absolutely effective and do a lot of good, others not so much, yet by lumping them all in together, the term can often be defined by the ones that do not work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely Mike, they cannot all be lumped in as 'complimentary therapies'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If you are going to present information mendaciously then it will indeed be disputed. Many more than 156 RCTs of homeopathy have taken place and the totality of evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that it. Notabley, you assert that, "four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions". It behoves anyone who makes categorical claims of these nature to provide references. That you fail to do so is unsurprising given what the "four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy" actually say.

    Let's have a look:

    1. Kleijnen et al, 1991, meta-analysis, 107 trials.
    "CONCLUSIONS: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias."

    2. Boissel et al, 1996, critical literature review commissioned by the European Commission Homeopathic Medicine Research Group, 184 trials. Boissel controversially combined p-values of the highest quality trials to arrive at this conclusion:

    "From the available evidence it is likely that among the tested homoeopathic approaches some had an added effect over nothing or placebo….but the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials."

    3. Cucherat et al 2000, used the same data as Boissel but with the addition of at least two more trials. Boissel was one of the four-strong research team and authored the report, which concluded:
    "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies."

    Early in 2010, science writer Martin Robbins quoted Jean-Pierre Boissel, an author on two of the four papers cited (Boissel et al and Cucherat et al), as saying: “My review did not reach the conclusion ‘that homeopathy differs from placebo’,” and pointed out that what he and his colleagues actually found was evidence of considerable bias in results, with higher quality trials producing results less favourable to homeopathy. (See Guardian on-line 5 February 2010).

    4. Linde 1997, meta-analysis, 89 trials.
    "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."

    Linde produced a follow-up paper in 1999, which concluded:
    "The evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. 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… have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

    Linde co-authored a brief article in the Lancet in December 2005. In it he wrote,
    "We agree (with Shang et al) that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust…"

    Shang et al were, of course, the team who did the fifth major review - the high quality one that showed homeopathy to be worthless beyond placebo.

    I'll leave the last word to Linde, from the Lancet article:



    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Apologies for loss of text and typ in my first para above. It should read:

    "...the totality of evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that it is no more effective than placebo. Notably, you assert that, "four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Adam Roxby

    I don't think I can add more to the good refutation made by Maria.

    For a more snappy account just search for 'Homeopathy enemies of reason' and see how Richard Dawkins explains the logic of homeopathy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Regardless of whether complementary therapies are useful or not, should it not be up to the therapist to recommend their own therapies and encourage patients to use them rather than a nurse selling it to the patient?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And again this is the danger of 'complimentary therapy' as an umbrella term. There are may treatments which have been proven not to work, yet there are also many 'complimentary therapies' that HAVE been proven to work.

    It is time to take each treatment/therapy on their own merits.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Homeopathy is effective according to Swiss federal report

    November 19th 2011

    The English translation of the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report on Homeopathy will be published in the UK on 30th November 2011. The Homeopathy Research Institute is glad to bring you a taster of the contents of this exciting report.

    The 2006 HTA report on homeopathy was commissioned by the Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) within the context of an overall evaluation of Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAMs). It was written by a team of German speaking academics and edited by G Bornhöft & F Matthiessen of Witten/Herdecke University in Germany.

    Interestingly, the HTA methodology, unlike meta-analyses and systematic reports such as the Cochrane Collaboration, does not just ask the question of effectiveness of a particular intervention, it also addresses the questions of effectiveness of a therapy in everyday use (i.e. real world effectiveness), how it is used, its safety and its cost-effectiveness.

    This report, amounting to 300-plus pages, exhaustively reviews the scientific literature in homeopathy. It summarises 22 reviews, 20 of which show positive results for homeopathy. Four of these showed strong evidence that homeopathy, as a system of medicine, is efficacious. It also finds strong supporting evidence for the homeopathic treatment of allergies and upper-respiratory tract infections.

    Shang et al comparative meta-analysis which appeared in the Lancet in 2005 and was heralded by the Lancet’s editor as “The end of homeopathy” was, according to Bornhöft & Matthiessen, commissioned by the FSIO as a part of this same assessment of CAMs. It was originally meant to investigate the quality of homeopathy trials compared to those of conventional medicine. In the HTA report the authors analyse the Shang et al 2005 study, stating that, “Although we cannot conclude from the previous remarks [about the Shang et al 2005 study] the opposite conclusion - that homeopathy is effective - we can say with certainty that the Shang et al 2005 study does not prove that homeopathy has no effect.” The report also presents the results of the quality assessment of homeopathy trials, concluding that “studies of homeopathy and phytotherapy were of better quality than comparable conventional medicine studies”.

    The Bornhöft & Matthiessen HTA report ends with this statement: “In conclusion we have established that there is sufficient supporting evidence for the pre-clinical (experimental) as well as clinical effects of homeopathy, and that in absolute terms, as well as when compared to conventional therapies, it offers a safe and cost-effective treatment.”

    With the publication of the English translation of the HTA report, we hope that the debate will finally move from the question, ‘Does homeopathy work?’ to the more pressing questions of ‘How does homeopathy work?’ and ‘What conditions can homeopathy treat effectively and cost-efficiently?’.

    ‘Homöopathie in der Krankenversorgung. Wirksamkeit, Nutzen, Sicherheit und Wirtschaftlichkeit.’
    English Title announced as: ‘Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs.’
    by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen (Editors)

    Author: Alex Tournier, HRI Executive Director
    Translation: Yves Zimmermann

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • mike said:

    "...there are also many 'complimentary therapies' that HAVE been proven to work."

    Which ones are you referring to?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This may explain why complementary medicine is now included again in the Swiss compulsory basic insurance.

    I hope patients are at least warned by any professional practitioners and have the choice of accepting or refusing it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.