Homeopathy research: Evidence levels difficult to obtain

Context. The recent meta-analysis on different homeopathic clinical studies have given contradictory results: some attribute the therapeutic impacts to a placebo impact, and others conclude on homeopathic medical effects. Objective. To identify the difficulties in producing a level of proof in homeopathy research. Method. Analytics studies of the main recent meta-analysis which compare clinical studies in homeopathy and traditional medicine. Results. According to some meta-analysis, the results have shown a clinical efficacy of homeopathy when compared to placebo while others failed to show any effect. The methodological quality of homeopathic studies were deficient in 30 to 40% of the publications. The criticism were numerous: the main one was the low number of patients included, the others were bias, patients lost for analysis and non-reproducibility of the results. Conclusion. It is difficult to get a level of proof in homeopathy. On one hand, it is difficult to include a sufficient number of patients in the studies. On other hand, homeopathy is based on fundamental principles that appear improbable: in fact, beyond 12 CH, no molecule is detectible. The exigencies to get a level of proof are superior than for allopathy, with the need for specific criteria for the evaluation of its effects. Moreover, homeopathic research is confronted with ethical obstacles.