How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? – Results from a long term observational study

Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.26). 12/2008; 8(1):413. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-413
Source: PubMed


Homeopathy is a highly debated but often used medical treatment. With this cohort study we aimed to evaluate health status changes under homeopathic treatment in routine care. Here we extend former results, now presenting data of an 8-year follow-up.
In a prospective, multicentre cohort study with 103 homeopathic primary care practices in Germany and Switzerland, data from all patients (age >1 year) consulting the physician for the first time were observed. The main outcome measures were: The patients' perceived change in complaint severity (numeric rating scales from 0 = no complaint to 10 = maximal severity) and quality of life as measured by the SF-36 at baseline, and after 2 and 8 years.
A total of 3,709 patients were studied, 73% (2,722 adults, 72.8% female, age at baseline 41.0 +/- 12.3; 819 children, 48.4% female, age 6.5 +/- 4.0) contributed data to the 8-year follow-up. The most frequent diagnoses were allergic rhinitis and headache in adults, and atopic dermatitis and multiple recurrent infections in children. Disease severity decreased significantly (p < 0.001) between baseline, 2 and 8 years (adults from 6.2 +/- 1.7 to 2.9 +/- 2.2 and 2.7 +/- 2.1; children from 6.1 +/- 1.8 to 2.1 +/- 2.0 and 1.7 +/- 1.9). Physical and mental quality of life sores also increased considerably. Younger age, female gender and more severe disease at baseline were factors predictive of better therapeutic success.
Patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably. These effects persist for as long as 8 years.

Download full-text


Available from: Claudia M Witt, Oct 04, 2015
25 Reads
  • Source
    • "Disease severity decreased significantly (p \ 0.001) between baseline, 2 and 8 years. Younger age, female gender and more severe disease at baseline correlated with better outcomes (Witt et al. 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from 'comparable to conventional medicine' to 'no evidence of effects beyond placebo'. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence-for homeopathy and for conventional medicine-can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the 'crossword analogy', we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence.
    Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 04/2012; 16(3). DOI:10.1007/s11019-012-9413-9 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "All of these questions could be answered using a prospective observational study which evaluates these aspects in usual care. This has been done for other traditional treatments such as homeopathy [151–153], and is currently being carried out for Kampo at the Keio University [154]. This computer-based self-assessment system is divided into two domains. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Japanese traditional herbal medicine, Kampo, has gradually reemerged and 148 different formulations (mainly herbal extracts) can be prescribed within the national health insurance system. The objective of this article is to introduce Kampo and to present information from previous clinical studies that tested Kampo formulae. In addition, suggestions on the design of future research will be stated. The literature search was based on a summary, up until January 2009, by the Japanese Society of Oriental Medicine and included only those trials which were also available in either Pubmed or ICHUSHI (Japan Medical Abstracts Society). We included 135 studies, half of these studies (n = 68) used a standard control and 28 a placebo control. Thirty-seven trials were published in English [all randomized controlled trials (RCTs)] and the remaining articles were in Japanese only. The sample size for most studies was small (two-third of the studies included less than 100 patients) and the overall methodological quality appeared to be low. None of the studies used Kampo diagnosis as the basis for the treatment. In order to evaluate Kampo as a whole treatment system, certain aspects should be taken into account while designing studies. RCTs are the appropriate study design to test efficacy or effectiveness; however, within the trial the treatment could be individualized according to the Kampo diagnosis. Kampo is a complex and individualized treatment with a long tradition, and it would be appropriate for further research on Kampo medicine to take this into account.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 02/2011; 2011(1741-427X):513842. DOI:10.1093/ecam/neq067 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Apparently, the inconsistent results seen in meta-analyses of placebo-controlled trials pooling a great variety of diseases and ailments [13,14] might be a consequence of trial selection [15]. We analyzed the data from our prospective observational study, which globally evaluated details and effects under homeopathic treatment in a usual care situation (3981 patients over 8 years [16-19]) with respect to diagnosis. This paper presents the 134 adults consulting a homeopathic physician because of chronic sinusitis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An evaluation of homeopathic treatment and the outcomes in patients suffering from sinusitis for >or=12 weeks in a usual care situation. Subgroup analysis including all patients with chronic sinusitis (ICD-9: 473.9; >or=12 weeks duration) of a large prospective multicentre observational study population. Consecutive patients presenting for homeopathic treatment were followed-up for 2 years, and complaint severity, health-related quality of life (QoL), and medication use were regularly recorded. We also present here patient-reported health status 8 years post initial treatment. The study included 134 adults (mean age 39.8 +/- 10.4 years, 76.1% women), treated by 62 physicians. Patients had suffered from chronic sinusitis for 10.7 +/- 9.8 years. Almost all patients (97.0%) had previously been treated with conventional medicine. For sinusitis, effect size (effect divided by standard deviation at baseline) of complaint severity was 1.58 (95% CI 1.77; 1.40), 2.15 (2.38; 1.92), and 2.43 (2.68; 2.18) at 3, 12, and 24 months respectively. QoL improved accordingly, with SF-36 changes in physical component score 0.27 (0.15; 0.39), 0.35 (0.19; 0.52), 0.44 (0.23; 0.65) and mental component score 0.66 (0.49; 0.84), 0.71 (0.50; 0.92), 0.65 (0.39; 0.92), 0.74 (0.49; 1.00) at these points. The effects were still present after 8 years with SF-36 physical component score 0.38 (0.10; 0.65) and mental component score 0.74 (0.49; 1.00). This observational study showed relevant improvements that persisted for 8 years in patients seeking homeopathic treatment because of sinusitis. The extent to which the observed effects are due to the life-style regulation and placebo or context effects associated with the treatment needs clarification in future explanatory studies.
    BMC Ear Nose and Throat Disorders 07/2009; 9(1):7. DOI:10.1186/1472-6815-9-7
Show more