Classical and new proving methodology: Provings of Plumbum metallicum and Piper methysticum and comparison with a classical proving of Plumbum metallicum

An Attempt to Estimate the Noises in Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials by Employing the Jaccard Similarity Index and Noise Index

BACKGROUND

 The critical task of researchers conducting double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials is to segregate the signals from the noises. The noises are signs and symptoms due to factors other than the trial drug; signals are signs and symptoms due to the trial drug. Unfortunately, the existing tools (criteria for a causal association of symptoms only with the tested medicine, qualitative pathogenetic index, quantitative pathogenetic index, pathogenic index) have limitations in analyzing the symptoms of the placebo group as a comparator, resulting in inadequate segregation of the noises. Hence, the Jaccard similarity index and the Noise index are proposed for analyzing the symptoms of the placebo group as a comparator.

METHODS

 The Jaccard similarity index is the ratio of the number of common elements among the placebo and intervention groups to the aggregated number of elements in these groups. The Noise index is the ratio of common elements among the placebo and intervention group to the total elements of the intervention group. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials of Plumbum metallicum, Piper methysticum and Hepatitis C nosode were selected for experimenting with the computation of the Jaccard similarity index and the Noise index.

RESULTS

 Jaccard similarity index calculations show that 8% of Plumbum metallicum's elements, 10.7% of Piper methysticum's elements, and 19.3% of Hepatitis C nosode's elements were similar to the placebo group when elements of both the groups (intervention and placebo) were aggregated. Noise index calculations show that 10.7% of Plumbum metallicum's elements, 13.9% of Piper methysticum's elements and 25.7% of Hepatitis C nosode's elements were similar to those of the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

 The Jaccard similarity index and the Noise index might be considered an additional approach for analyzing the symptoms of the placebo group as a comparator, resulting in better noise segregation in homeopathic pathogenetic trials.

A minimum protocol for randomised homeopathic drug proving as basis for further research

BACKGROUND

In order to further improve the methodology and quality of data collection in homeopathic drug provings (HDP), there is a need for a minimum standardised HDP protocol. The objective of the present study was to test the feasibility of this type of protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study protocol embraced a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. It was approved by an ethics review committee. During the pre-approval phase, discordances between the regulatory and homeopathic requirements for the protocol were checked and solutions found. The study medication was Potentilla anserina. 6 participants received verum and 4 placebo. The resulting symptom list will be published elsewhere. The procedure was accepted by all participants.

RESULTS

Three important issues were addressed: the requirement to keep all participants blinded; the adverse events reporting to regulatory authorities; and the necessity of a placebo control group. Other issues that need further investigations were identified, e.g. sample size, observation period and dosage regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

A minimum protocol of a HDP is feasible. All important design elements of HDP could be solved in discussions with the respective regulatory authorities, and participating homeopaths accepted the procedure.

A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995

BACKGROUND

The quality of information gathered from homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs), also known as 'provings', is fundamental to homeopathy. We systematically reviewed HPTs published in six languages (English, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Dutch) from 1945 to 1995, to assess their quality in terms of the validity of the information they provide.

METHODS

The literature was comprehensively searched, only published reports of HPTs were included. Information was extracted by two reviewers per trial using a form with 87 items. Information on: medicines, volunteers, ethical aspects, blinding, randomization, use of placebo, adverse effects, assessments, presentation of data and number of claimed findings were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed by an index including indicators of internal and external validity, personal judgement and comments of reviewers for each study.

RESULTS

156 HPTs on 143 medicines, involving 2815 volunteers, produced 20,538 pathogenetic effects (median 6.5 per volunteer). There was wide variation in methods and results. Sample size (median 15, range 1-103) and trial duration (mean 34 days) were very variable. Most studies had design flaws, particularly absence of proper randomization, blinding, placebo control and criteria for analysis of outcomes. Mean methodological score was 5.6 (range 4-16). More symptoms were reported from HPTs of poor quality than from better ones. In 56% of trials volunteers took placebo. Pathogenetic effects were claimed in 98% of publications. On average about 84% of volunteers receiving active treatment developed symptoms. The quality of reports was in general poor, and much important information was not available.

CONCLUSIONS

The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required.

REFERENCES

References to all included RCTs are available on-line at.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: Symptom collection and analysis

BACKGROUND

Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings) are fundamental to homeopathy. Since most of the data from available provings have not been statistically evaluated, it is unclear how specific reported symptoms are and how they differ from those reported by people taking placebo.

METHOD

We combine and analyse data from two different homeopathic pathogenic trials--including 10 and 11 provers, respectively, and both including 30% placebo-to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the number of symptoms in placebo and verum groups.

RESULTS

The principal results were: Placebo reported less symptoms than verum groups. Symptom distribution according to predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically different between placebo and verum group at a high level of significance (P<0.001). Compared to verum, placebo provers reported less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) symptoms. Within repertory categories, other differences were detected. The two groups differ in terms of the duration of each symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a decreasing number of symptoms with time. Placebo provers did not show such a temporal pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

If confirmed by other studies these results would demonstrate the non-equivalence between homeopathic medicines in high dilution and placebo and contribute to the improvement of proving methodology and evaluation.