EVIDENCE-BASED HOMEOPATHY: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF RECENT META-ANALYSES AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (2020-2025)

Abstract

Background: Homeopathy remains a controversial therapeutic modality with ongoing debates about its clinical effectiveness. Recent years have seen increased efforts to standardize research methodology and improve evidence quality.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive overview of evidence-based homeopathy through systematic analysis of recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews published between 2020-2025.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases (SciSpace, PubMed, Google Scholar) focusing on meta-analyses and systematic reviews of homeopathic interventions published from 2020 onwards. Studies were analyzed for methodological quality, clinical effectiveness, safety profiles, and areas of ongoing controversy.

Results: Analysis of 240 studies revealed heterogeneous, generally low-certainty evidence. Recent meta-analyses show occasional small pooled effects for specific preparations (e.g., Arnica montana postoperative: Hedges' g ≈ 0.18, 95% CI −0.007 to 0.373), but findings are limited by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and high risk of bias in primary studies. New methodological frameworks (Sum-HomIS, CATHIS) have been developed to standardize research approaches and improve evidence quality.

Conclusions: Contemporary evidence indicates occasional small effects for specific homeopathic preparations but persistent methodological limitations that constrain clinical inference. The field requires adherence to harmonized methodological recommendations, improved trial conduct, and adequately powered comparative effectiveness studies.