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

	Microsoft PowerPoint A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_OF_HOMEOPATHIC_PATHOGENETIC_TRIALS.ppt Restricted to Repository staff only Download (365Kb)
Preview	PDF A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_OF_HOMEOPATHIC_PATHOGENETIC_TRIALS.pdf - Presentation Download (182Kb)

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 Sciences > Faculty of Health & Social Sciences > Hull School of Health & Social Care
Depositing User:	Jim Rogers
Date Deposited:	30 Oct 2010 18:09
Last Modified:	13 Mar 2013 08:49
URI:	http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/3580

Available Versions of this Item

• A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials. (deposited 10 Sep 2010 11:02)
  • A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials. (deposited 30 Oct 2010 18:09) [Currently Displayed]

Actions (login required)

View Item