A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials

Rogers, J. (2010) A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials. In: ICCMR 2010 5TH Internationa Congress on Complementart Medicine Research, 19th - 21st May 2010, Tromso Norway.

WarningThere is a more recent version of this item available.

Documents
A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials
[img]
[Download]
A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_OF_HOMEOPATHIC_PATHOGENETIC_TRIALS.pdf
[img]
[Download]
[img] Microsoft PowerPoint
A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_OF_HOMEOPATHIC_PATHOGENETIC_TRIALS.ppt - Presentation
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

365Kb
[img]
Preview
PDF
A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_OF_HOMEOPATHIC_PATHOGENETIC_TRIALS.pdf - Presentation
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

182Kb

Official URL: http://www.iccmr2010.com

Abstract

0-090 Homeopathy, used by 500 million
people worldwide according to the
WHO, remains controversial. Provings,
now known as Homeopathic
Pathogenetic Trials ( HPTs) remain
one of the foundation stones of Homeopathy.
They involve the administration
of substances in Homeopathic
dilutions to groups of healthy people
with the aim of producing pathogenic
symptoms. This is the first review of
HPTs which meet modern standards
for trial design. A systematic review
was undertaken, using MEDLINE,
AMED, EMBASE , CINAHL, and
HOMINFORM. From 503 papers, 11
papers covering 15 trials met the full
inclusion criteria. The aim was to assess
whether Homeopathic substances
could produce symptoms different
from those produced by placebo. Trials
took place in different countries
using different medicines. Outcomes
were assessed by structured and
unstructured diaries and questionnaires.
Statistical meta-analysis was possible
for two of the outcome measures: 1.
A comparison of the level of symptoms
pre-defined as typical of the
trial medicine across the verum and
placebo group and 2.A comparison of
overall proving reactions in the two
groups. No significant differences
were found.
All of the included trials were of good
methodological quality in terms of
standard RCT design. However they
all shared a major weakness in relation
to homeopathic theory. The theory
suggests that only susceptible individuals
will respond to a particular
medicine, whether in clinical practice
or in a pathogenetic trial, and that the
percentage of individuals who are susceptible
will be small. For such trials
participants should first be screened
for susceptibility before randomisation
into the main trial. Otherwise
trials are likely to show no difference
between verum and placebo groups
since the level of symptoms produced
by placebo is always significant and
is unlikely to be less than any real
pathogenetic effects produced by the
medicine in the small percentage of
trial participants who are susceptible.
Presenter: Jim Rogers Senior Lecturer

Item Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Presentation)
Additional Information:0-090 Homeopathy, used by 500 million people worldwide according to the WHO, remains controversial. Provings, now known as Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials ( HPTs) remain one of the foundation stones of Homeopathy. They involve the administration of substances in Homeopathic dilutions to groups of healthy people with the aim of producing pathogenic symptoms. This is the first review of HPTs which meet modern standards for trial design. A systematic review was undertaken, using MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE , CINAHL, and HOMINFORM. From 503 papers, 11 papers covering 15 trials met the full inclusion criteria. The aim was to assess whether Homeopathic substances could produce symptoms different from those produced by placebo. Trials took place in different countries using different medicines. Outcomes were assessed by structured and unstructured diaries and questionnaires. Statistical meta-analysis was possible for two of the outcome measures: 1. A comparison of the level of symptoms pre-defined as typical of the trial medicine across the verum and placebo group and 2.A comparison of overall proving reactions in the two groups. No significant differences were found. All of the included trials were of good methodological quality in terms of standard RCT design. However they all shared a major weakness in relation to homeopathic theory. The theory suggests that only susceptible individuals will respond to a particular medicine, whether in clinical practice or in a pathogenetic trial, and that the percentage of individuals who are susceptible will be small. For such trials participants should first be screened for susceptibility before randomisation into the main trial. Otherwise trials are likely to show no difference between verum and placebo groups since the level of symptoms produced by placebo is always significant and is unlikely to be less than any real pathogenetic effects produced by the medicine in the small percentage of trial participants who are susceptible. Presenter: Jim Rogers Senior Lecturer
Keywords:Homeopathy, Pathogenetic, Trials, Systematic Review
Subjects:B Subjects allied to Medicine > B390 Complementary Medicine not elsewhere classified
Divisions:College of Social Science > School of Health & Social Care
ID Code:3310
Deposited By: Jim Rogers
Deposited On:10 Sep 2010 11:02
Last Modified:29 Nov 2013 13:37

Available Versions of this Item

Repository Staff Only: item control page