A Systematic Review of Homoeopathic Research on Gout and Hyperuricaemia: Road Ahead

Abstract

Abstract Objective This study aimed to systematically review the literature on homeopathic researches on gout and hyperuricaemia. Materials and Methods A comprehensive online and manual search for research studies on the efficacy of homeopathy in gout and/or hyperuricaemia in clinical trials, in vitro and in vivo experimentation was conducted. All types of studies related to the homeopathic treatment of gout and hyperuricaemia in a human trial, animal experimentations and in vitro experiments on hyperuricaemia, published from January 2001 to January 2022 were considered for review. The methodology was assessed by Jadad scoring for clinical trials, the internal validity of randomised controlled trials by the Cochrane collaboration tool, model validity by Mathie's criteria and the internal validity of observational studies and case reports by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria and JBI appraisal checklist, respectively. Results A total of 16 articles related to homoeopathy on hyperuricaemia and gout were identified, including one preliminary qualitative study, six clinical observational studies, two double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trials, three case reports, and four animal experiments including one in vitro trial also. Methodological quality analysed by Jaded scoring was diverse, ranging from 0 to 4; by the Cochrane collaboration tool, out of two randomised controlled trials, one had a high risk of bias, while the other had a low risk of bias; observational out of seven studies, only two had a ‘low' risk of bias, three had a ‘moderate' risk and two had a ‘high' risk of bias; JBI appraisal checklist for case report showed two had a ‘low' & one had a ‘moderate' risk of bias. Conclusion This review demonstrates the effectiveness of homoeopathy in all clinical studies, case reports and in vivo and in vitro models studied under the review, but it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion due to a small number of good quality clinical trials, randomised trials and of laboratory experiments.