Back

Effectiveness of Homeopathic Interventions for Insomnia and Sleep Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Paracha, M. A.; Fazal, F.; Khan, S. A. J.; Rizvi, S. S.; Afridi, R. A.; Mathangasinghe, Y.

2025-11-13 public and global health
10.1101/2025.11.08.25339705 medRxiv
Show abstract

Insomnia is a common sleep disorder, and many individuals seek alternative treatments like homeopathy. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathic interventions for insomnia and sleep-wake disorders. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between 2010 and 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies involving adults ([≥]18 years) with primary insomnia receiving any homeopathic intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, or active care. Primary outcomes included validated sleep quality measures (e.g., Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Four reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for controlled trials, and a narrative synthesis for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The search yielded 1304 records; 12 studies (nine RCTs and three non-randomized) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a large, statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy on sleep outcomes (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI [0.24, 1.38], p = 0.0055), with substantial heterogeneity (I{superscript 2} = 86.04%) and publication bias (Eggers test, p = 0.0079). Most studies had high or critical risk of bias, and overall certainty was low. Homeopathic interventions showed a large positive effect on sleep outcomes, but due to high bias, heterogeneity, and publication bias, evidence remains low-certainty and insufficient to support effectiveness. High-quality RCTs are needed. Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42025649926.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.4%
5
Sleep Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Sleep
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Pharmaceuticals
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
8
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 28%
3.3%
11
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
12
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
14
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
15
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
Obesity
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
21
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
25
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
26
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
27
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%