Michael Frass1, Helmut Friehs2, Christiane Thallinger3, Narinderjit Kaur Sohal4, Christine Marosi5, Ilse Muchitsch6, Katharina Gaertner7, Andreas Gleiss8, Ernst Schuster9, Menachem Oberbaum10. 1. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria; WissHom (Scientific Society for Homeopathy), Köthen, Germany. Electronic address: michael.frass@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. WissHom (Scientific Society for Homeopathy), Köthen, Germany. Electronic address: helmut.friehs@gmx.net. 3. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christiane.thallinger@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: narinderjit.sohal@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christine.marosi@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Austrian Chamber of Pharmacists, Department Vienna, HomResearch, Interdisciplinary Homeopathic Research Group, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: ilse.muchitsch@chello.at. 7. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: katha_gh@web.de. 8. Medical University of Vienna, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: andreas.gleiss@meduniwien.ac.at. 9. Medical University of Vienna, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: ernst.schuster@meduniwien.ac.at. 10. Shaare Zedek Medical Center, The Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel. Electronic address: oberbaum@netvision.net.il.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The use of complementary and alternative medicine has increased over the past decade. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether homeopathy influenced global health status and subjective wellbeing when used as an adjunct to conventional cancer therapy. DESIGN: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, 410 patients, who were treated by standard anti-neoplastic therapy, were randomized to receive or not receive classical homeopathic adjunctive therapy in addition to standard therapy. The study took place at the Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were global health status and subjective wellbeing as assessed by the patients. At each of three visits (one baseline, two follow-up visits), patients filled in two different questionnaires. RESULTS:373 patients yielded at least one of three measurements. The improvement of global health status between visits 1 and 3 was significantly stronger in the homeopathy group by 7.7 (95% CI 2.3-13.0, p=0.005) when compared with the control group. A significant group difference was also observed with respect to subjective wellbeing by 14.7 (95% CI 8.5-21.0, p<0.001) in favor of the homeopathic as compared with the control group. Control patients showed a significant improvement only in subjective wellbeing between their first and third visits. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the global health status and subjective wellbeing of cancer patients improve significantly when adjunct classical homeopathic treatment is administered in addition to conventional therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The use of complementary and alternative medicine has increased over the past decade. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether homeopathy influenced global health status and subjective wellbeing when used as an adjunct to conventional cancer therapy. DESIGN: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, 410 patients, who were treated by standard anti-neoplastic therapy, were randomized to receive or not receive classical homeopathic adjunctive therapy in addition to standard therapy. The study took place at the Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Clinical Division of Oncology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were global health status and subjective wellbeing as assessed by the patients. At each of three visits (one baseline, two follow-up visits), patients filled in two different questionnaires. RESULTS: 373 patients yielded at least one of three measurements. The improvement of global health status between visits 1 and 3 was significantly stronger in the homeopathy group by 7.7 (95% CI 2.3-13.0, p=0.005) when compared with the control group. A significant group difference was also observed with respect to subjective wellbeing by 14.7 (95% CI 8.5-21.0, p<0.001) in favor of the homeopathic as compared with the control group. Control patients showed a significant improvement only in subjective wellbeing between their first and third visits. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the global health status and subjective wellbeing of cancerpatients improve significantly when adjunct classical homeopathic treatment is administered in addition to conventional therapy.
Authors: Anna Wagenknecht; Jennifer Dörfler; Maren Freuding; Lena Josfeld; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702