Article

Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, England, United Kingdom.
Archives of Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.3). 12/1998; 133(11):1187-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The efficacy of homeopathic remedies has remained controversial. The homeopathic remedy most frequently studied in placebo-controlled clinical trials is Arnica montana.
To systematically review the clinical efficacy of homeopathic arnica.
Computerized literature searches were performed to retrieve all placebo-controlled studies on the subject. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CISCOM, and the Cochrane Library. Data were extracted in a predefined, standardized fashion independently by both authors. There were no restrictions on the language of publications.
Eight trials fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Most related to conditions associated with tissue trauma. Most of these studies were burdened with severe methodological flaws. On balance, they do not suggest that homeopathic arnica is more efficacious than placebo.
The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • Annals of internal medicine 03/2003; 138(5):393. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-138-5-200303040-00009 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Alternative and Complementary Therapies 12/1999; 5(6):369-372. DOI:10.1089/act.1999.5.369
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of the quality and effectiveness of a therapeutic method. Assessing the satisfaction of patients undergoing homeopathic therapy is essential in the early steps of educating the community, if suitable outcomes are to be achieved. Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 2008 on 125 patients from the city of Isfahan. Patients aged above 15 years who had referred to the homeopathic practitioners and received homeopathic drugs for at least three times were randomly selected and included in the study. Patient satisfaction was assessed in three main areas (general health, physician performance, and symptoms relief) using a valid questionnaire. The results were compared with those of a similar study conducted in 2004 on 240 patients. Results: Mean score of satisfaction with homeopathic treatment was 77.48 ± 6.36 out of 100. In 2004, it was 77.4 ± 8.13. Median age was 36.41 ± 11.25 years. Median time of therapy was 16.80 ± 17.94 months. The highest level of satisfaction was related to relief of symptoms. Satisfaction of physician performance and improvement of general health came next. The degree of satisfaction with therapy was not significant between the different groups with regard to their sex and different levels of education, but there was significant difference in the duration of treatment. The four symptoms that showed better improvement in 2008 were headache, gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances, fatigue, and insomnia. Conclusions: After using homeopathy for several years, patients’ satisfaction was found to be still high. Shifting the area of satisfaction from general health to relief of symptoms could be related to physicians’ experiments for remedy selection. Scientific centers should do more surveys about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. Integration of homeopathy with medicine may bring in more success at less cost. It seems rational to support homeopathy as an effective practice.
    Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research 09/2014; 19(5):496-502.