Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Phytotherapy in the Veterinary Treatment or Prophylaxis of Diseases in Animals: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Introduction Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) has been intensively used, and there is currently an increasing demand for a more rigorous approach regarding its clinical effectiveness.

Aims The objectives of this overview were: first, to identify systematic reviews on homeopathy, acupuncture and phytotherapy in veterinary medicine and assess their methodological quality; and second, to map interventions and findings in the treatment or prophylaxis of any medical conditions in any animal species for which high-quality systematic reviews had identified reliable evidence of efficacy or effectiveness in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs).

Method The study was an overview of systematic reviews published in the years 2000 to 2022 inclusive. The following databases were used: CAB Abstracts, PubMed and Vet Index, from which the abstracts of 173 articles were extracted, 22 of which were initially included for complete analysis. After excluding 15 studies according to the exclusion/inclusion criteria, 7 review papers were comprehensively analyzed. The review quality was assessed by the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) method. The reported RCTs/CCTs in these reviews were analyzed for their reliability, and the results were classified according to statistical significance and risk of bias.

Results Seven eligible systematic reviews reported studies on dogs, horses, cats, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, rabbits and poultry. The number of primary RCTs/CCTs was 38 for homeopathy, 35 for acupuncture, and 171 for phytotherapy. The AMSTAR 2 evaluation ranked two reviews of veterinary homeopathy as high-quality, in which two placebo-controlled RCTs comprised reliable evidence, one of which reported efficacy of homeopathy as prophylaxis for diarrhea in pigs. The systematic reviews of acupuncture and phytotherapy were all of low quality, preventing formal assessment of their reviewed RCTs/CCTs.

Conclusion Only the systematic reviews of homeopathy were rated of sufficient quality to enable the assessment of reliable evidence within their reviewed RCTs. Contemporary high-quality systematic reviews of clinical trials in each of the three areas of CAVM are required.