OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathy versus conventional treatment in routine care. DESIGN: Comparative cohort study. SETTING: Patients with selected chronic diagnoses were enrolled in medical practice. INTERVENTIONS: Conventional treatment or homeopathy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of symptoms assessed by patients and physicians (visual rating scale, 0-10) at baseline, 6 and 12 months and costs. RESULTS: The analyses of 493 patients (315 adults, 178 children) indicated greater improvement in patients' assessments after homoeopathic versus conventional treatment (adults: homeopathy from 5.7 to 3.2; conventional, 5.9-4.4; p=0.002; children from 5.1 to 2.6 and from 4.5 to 3.2). Physician assessments were also more favourable for children who had received homoeopathic treatment (4.6-2.0 and 3.9-2.7; p<0.001). Overall costs showed no significant differences between both treatment groups (adults, 2155 versus 2013, p=0.856; children, 1471 versus 786, p=0.137). CONCLUSION: Patients seeking homoeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment, whereas total costs in both groups were similar.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathy versus conventional treatment in routine care. DESIGN: Comparative cohort study. SETTING:Patients with selected chronic diagnoses were enrolled in medical practice. INTERVENTIONS: Conventional treatment or homeopathy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of symptoms assessed by patients and physicians (visual rating scale, 0-10) at baseline, 6 and 12 months and costs. RESULTS: The analyses of 493 patients (315 adults, 178 children) indicated greater improvement in patients' assessments after homoeopathic versus conventional treatment (adults: homeopathy from 5.7 to 3.2; conventional, 5.9-4.4; p=0.002; children from 5.1 to 2.6 and from 4.5 to 3.2). Physician assessments were also more favourable for children who had received homoeopathic treatment (4.6-2.0 and 3.9-2.7; p<0.001). Overall costs showed no significant differences between both treatment groups (adults, 2155 versus 2013, p=0.856; children, 1471 versus 786, p=0.137). CONCLUSION:Patients seeking homoeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment, whereas total costs in both groups were similar.
Authors: Iris R Bell; Amy Howerter; Nicholas Jackson; Mikel Aickin; Carol M Baldwin; Richard R Bootzin Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 3.492
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: Stefanie Joos; Thomas Rosemann; Joachim Szecsenyi; Eckhart G Hahn; Stefan N Willich; Benno Brinkhaus Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2006-05-22 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Harald J Hamre; Claudia M Witt; Gunver S Kienle; Christoph Meinecke; Anja Glockmann; Stefan N Willich; Helmut Kiene Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda; Pierre Engel; Jacques Massol; Didier Guillemot; Bernard Avouac; Gerard Duru; France Lert; Anne-Marie Magnier; Michel Rossignol; Frederic Rouillon; Lucien Abenhaim; Bernard Begaud Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea Basili; Francesco Lagona; Paolo Roberti di Sarsina; Corallina Basili; Teresa Valeria Paterna Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 2.629