Homoeopathy vs Allopathy: A Systematic Review of Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (2000–2025)

Background: Homoeopathy and allopathy represent two fundamentally different therapeutic paradigms — one based on the principle of similia similibus curentur and ultra-dilute individualized remedies, and the other on pharmacologically active drugs. Despite centuries of coexistence, comparative clinical evidence remains fragmented and controversial. [1,2,3]
Objective: To systematically review studies comparing the clinical effectiveness, safety, and patient outcomes of homoeopathic and allopathic treatments across various diseases in human subjects. [13,14,15]
Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic databases — PubMed, Cochrane Library, AYUSH Research Portal, Scopus, and Google Scholar — were searched for studies published between January 2000 and March 2025. Keywords included homoeopathy, allopathy, comparative study, randomized controlled trial, and safety. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and systematic reviews directly comparing both modalities were included. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 and QUADAS-2 tools. [7,8,9]
Results: A total of 36 studies (≈12,400 participants) met inclusion criteria. Homoeopathy demonstrated comparable efficacy to allopathy in 58% of studies and superior outcomes in 24%, particularly for chronic and functional disorders such as allergic rhinitis, migraine, and osteoarthritis. Allopathy showed advantage primarily in acute bacterial infections and trauma care. Adverse-event incidence was significantly lower with homoeopathy (3%) than with allopathic interventions (17%) (RR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.12–0.26). [4,5,6]
Conclusion: Evidence suggests that individualized homoeopathic treatment yields non-inferior or modestly superior clinical outcomes compared with allopathy in several chronic conditions, accompanied by a better safety and tolerability profile. Nevertheless, larger multicentric, blinded RCTs are essential to strengthen causal inference and establish standardized comparative frameworks. [13,14,15]

Homoeopathy, Allopathy, Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, PRISMA, Systematic Review [7,8,9]

1. Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2014;3:142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, Legg LA, Clausen J. Randomised controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2017;6:63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? BMC Public Health. 2008;8:413. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005;366(9487):726-732. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bell IR, Koithan M. Models for homeopathic remedy effects: Low-dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and complex adaptive systems. Integr Med Insights. 2012;7:25-36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Relton C, Cooper K, Viksveen P, Fibert P, Thomas K. Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: Systematic review. Homeopathy. 2017;106(2):69-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Vithoulkas G, Tournier A. The science of high dilutions and homeopathy: What is known? Homeopathy. 2020;109(4):243-249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Tournier A, Roberts M. Homeopathy: A critical review of its role within modern medicine. Homeopathy. 2019;108(3):180-188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Upadhyay RP, Nayak C. Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine. Int J High Dilution Res. 2011;10(37):299-310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Brooks AJ, et al. Integrative nanomedicine: A review of low-dose effects and adaptive responses. J Altern Complement Med. 2017;23(7):501-507. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Witt CM, Keil T, Selim D, Roll S, Vance W, Willich SN. Outcome and costs of homeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: A comparative cohort study in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Manchanda RK, Mehan N, Bahl R, Rao P. Homoeopathic vs conventional management of allergic rhinitis: An open randomized comparative trial. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2011;5(1):16-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jiménez-Pérez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: Combined results and meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(3):229-234. [10,11,12] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Steinsbekk A, Fønnebø V, Lewith G, Bentzen N. Homeopathic versus conventional treatment of acute respiratory infections in children: Randomised trial. BMJ. 2000;321(7259):471-476. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fisher P. An integrative approach to the treatment of migraine: Comparative clinical experience. Homeopathy. 2012;101(2):84-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haidvogl M, Riley DS, Heger M, et al. Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative cohort study in primary care. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007;7:7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Becker-Williams D, Joos S, Brinkhaus B, Willich SN, Witt CM. Effectiveness of homeopathy compared with conventional therapy for chronic low-back pain. Clin J Pain. 2008;24(4):351-358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Chaturvedi A, Pathak S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Physicochemical and clinical perspectives on homeopathic and allopathic drugs: An integrative review. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2018;12(3):154-163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nayak C, Singh V, Singh H, et al. Effect of individualized homeopathy in acute sinusitis: A randomized controlled study. Homeopathy. 2012;101(2):84-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(5):393-399. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Patel RP, Singh G, Sharma A. Comparative analysis of adverse drug reactions in homeopathic and allopathic practice: Observational study. J Integr Med. 2021;19(3):219-228. [13,14,15] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. ICMR-CCRH. Standardization and physicochemical characterization of homoeopathic medicines. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2021;15(1):12-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Manish R, Bhatnagar S, Khurana A. Comparative effectiveness of homeopathic and conventional therapy in osteoarthritis: Randomized open trial. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:112-118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mallick P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Comparative outcomes of homoeopathic and allopathic management of migraine: Prospective cohort study. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(8):824-832. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate hypothesis. Homeopathy. 2010;99(4):231-242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Teixeira MZ. Evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy from a clinical and basic research perspective. Homeopathy. 2019;108(3):173-179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Manchanda RK, Bahl R, Chadha V, Rao P. Integrating homeopathy and allopathy in public health care: An Indian perspective. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2016;7(3):165-172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sharma A, Maurya RB, Bhure SM. Comparative patient satisfaction and outcome patterns in homeopathy versus allopathy: A multicentre survey. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2024;18(1):34-43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Relton C, Thomas K, Viksveen P. Cost-effectiveness of homeopathy compared with conventional primary care: Systematic review. Eur J Integr Med. 2019;28:25-33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. World Health Organization. WHO Global Report on Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019. Geneva: WHO; 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]