BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in homeopathy have suggested that homeopathy is more than a placebo response. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the effectiveness of homeopathy in primary care with conventional medicine in primary care for three commonly encountered clinical conditions. DESIGN: An international multicenter, prospective, observational study in a real world medical setting comparing the effectiveness of homeopathy with conventional medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty (30) investigators with conventional medical licenses at six clinical sites in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least one of the following three complaints: (1) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; (2) lower respiratory tract complaints including allergies; or (3) ear complaints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes criterion was the response to treatment, defined as cured or major improvement after 14 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes criteria were: (1) rate of recovery; (2) occurrence of adverse events; (3) patient satisfaction; and (4) length of consultation. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-six (456) patient visits were compared: 281 received homeopathy, 175 received conventional medicine. The response to treatment as measured by the primary outcomes criterion for patients receiving homeopathy was 82.6%, for conventional medicine it was 68%. Improvement in less than 1 day and in 1 to 3 days was noted in 67.3% of the group receiving homeopathy and in 56.6% of those receiving conventional medicine. The adverse events for those treated with conventional medicine was 22.3% versus 7.8% for those treated with homeopathy. Seventy-nine percent (79.0%) of patients treated with homeopathy were very satisfied and 65.1% of patients treated with conventional, medicine were very satisfied. In both treatment groups 60% of cases had consultations lasting between 5 and 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional medical care in the treatment of patients with the three conditions studied.
BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in homeopathy have suggested that homeopathy is more than a placebo response. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the effectiveness of homeopathy in primary care with conventional medicine in primary care for three commonly encountered clinical conditions. DESIGN: An international multicenter, prospective, observational study in a real world medical setting comparing the effectiveness of homeopathy with conventional medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty (30) investigators with conventional medical licenses at six clinical sites in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least one of the following three complaints: (1) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; (2) lower respiratory tract complaints including allergies; or (3) ear complaints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes criterion was the response to treatment, defined as cured or major improvement after 14 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes criteria were: (1) rate of recovery; (2) occurrence of adverse events; (3) patient satisfaction; and (4) length of consultation. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-six (456) patient visits were compared: 281 received homeopathy, 175 received conventional medicine. The response to treatment as measured by the primary outcomes criterion for patients receiving homeopathy was 82.6%, for conventional medicine it was 68%. Improvement in less than 1 day and in 1 to 3 days was noted in 67.3% of the group receiving homeopathy and in 56.6% of those receiving conventional medicine. The adverse events for those treated with conventional medicine was 22.3% versus 7.8% for those treated with homeopathy. Seventy-nine percent (79.0%) of patients treated with homeopathy were very satisfied and 65.1% of patients treated with conventional, medicine were very satisfied. In both treatment groups 60% of cases had consultations lasting between 5 and 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional medical care in the treatment of patients with the three conditions studied.
Authors: Florica Marian; Kerstin Joost; Krishan D Saini; Klaus von Ammon; André Thurneysen; André Busato Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Paolo Bellavite; Riccardo Ortolani; Francesco Pontarollo; Valeria Piasere; Giovanni Benato; Anita Conforti Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Max Haidvogl; David S Riley; Marianne Heger; Sara Brien; Miek Jong; Michael Fischer; George T Lewith; Gerard Jansen; André E Thurneysen Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Paolo Bellavite; Riccardo Ortolani; Francesco Pontarollo; Valeria Piasere; Giovanni Benato; Anita Conforti Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2006-07-31 Impact factor: 2.629