A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca

Wiesenauer, M.; Lüdtke, Rainer

doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0391

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also observed clinically ameliorated allergic symptoms in 2 provers, as well as allergy-like symptoms such as burning, dryness, itching, and lacrimation in the majority of provers. This finding is compatible with the available clinical data on Galphimia in the treatment of allergic conditions [14][15][16]. These findings point to a correspondence between the toxicological and homoeopathic effects of the drug [25].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The plant was originally collected by Schwabe in Brazil and taken back to Germany where homoeopathic practitioners used it to treat allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, and allergic and atopic eczema [14]. Several randomised clinical studies on its use as a homoeopathic treatment for allergic rhinitis were conducted by Wiesenauer and yielded positive results [15,16]. The aim of this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled homoeopathic proving was to improve the therapeutic use of a lesser-known homoeopathic drug by monitoring the symptoms it produces compared to placebo and by recording these symptoms in both a qualitative and quantitative manner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

Teut

Dahler²,

Schnegg³

2008

Forsch Komplementmed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Homoeopathic provings are a fundamental concept in homoeopathy. The aim of this study was to record the symptoms produced by a homoeopathic drug compared to placebo. Methods: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 1-week baseline, 4-week proving, and 2-week post-observational period. Subjects: 15 healthy physicians and medical students volunteered as provers; 11 were randomised to verum and 4 to placebo. Proving substance: Galphimia glauca C12 compared to placebo; maximum intake of 5 days. Outcome measures: Proving symptoms according to ICCH definition and the number of proving symptoms. The proving symptoms were analysed qualitatively using the Boenninghausen method. Results: A total of 682 symptoms were observed in both groups. Galphimia glauca provers experienced states of exhaustion, weakness, lack of concentration, feelings of confusion, dryness of mouth, lacrimation, and burning sensation in the eyes. Two provers experienced an amelioration of their allergic rhinitis. Proving symptoms were completely reversible. The statistical analysis showed more ICCH proving symptoms for placebo (mean 72.3 ± SD 37.3) than for Galphimia (35 ± 24.2), but the group difference was not significant (95% confidence interval, –78 to 1, p = 0.097). Discussion: Although statistical analysis showed no significant group differences, we observed specific symptoms under Galphimia glauca that correspond to those seen in clinical studies of phytotherapeutic preparations, including relaxing, sedative, anxiolytic, and anti-allergic effects. Conclusion: Our results confirm the toxicological and clinical effects of Galphimia glauca compared to placebo, but the ICCH criteria for proving symptoms were not suitable to distinguish between specific and unspecific symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

Teut

Dahler²,

Schnegg³

2008

Forsch Komplementmed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ʈ, 90 In addition, meta-analyses and reviews of several specific diagnoses have been carried out. 86,[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] Most of these reviews and meta-analyses, with some exceptions, [99][100][101] reached the conclusion that the effects observed in all trials are not compatible with the hypothesis that homeopathy is identical with placebo but that too few trials exist in any single clinical areas to recommend homeopathy clinically. Whether homeopathy is a placebo or not is also dependent on the inclusion and analysis criteria used by a meta-analysis or a review.…”

Section: Therapeutic Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art

Walach

Jonas²,

Ives³

et al. 2005

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review research on homeopathy from four perspectives, focusing on reviews and some landmark studies. These perspectives are laboratory studies, clinical trials, observational studies, and theoretical work. In laboratory models, numerous effects and anomalies have been reported. However, no single model has been sufficiently widely replicated. Instead, researchers have focused on ever-new models and experiments, leaving the picture of scattered anomalies without coherence. Basic research, trying to elucidate a purported difference between homeopathic remedies and control solutions has also produced some encouraging results, but again, series of independent replications are missing. While there are nearly 200 reports on clinical trials, few series have been conducted for single conditions. Some of these series document clinically useful effects and differences against placebo and some series do not. Observational research into uncontrolled homeopathic practice documents consistently strong therapeutic effects and sustained satisfaction in patients. We suggest that this scattered picture has to do with the fourth line of research: lack of a good theory. Some of the extant theoretical models are reviewed, including placebo, water structure, silica contamination, energy models, and entanglement models. It emerges that local models, suggesting some change in structure in the solvent, are far from convincing. The nonlocal models proposed would predict that it is impossible to nail down homeopathic effects with direct experimental testing and this places homeopathy in a scientific dilemma. We close with some suggestions for potentially fruitful research.

show abstract

“…[4,5]. In a meta-analysis of seven randomized double-blind trials, Galphimia glauca proved superior to placebo in reducing ocular hay fever symptoms; the response rates of Galphimia glauca were estimated to be similar to those specified for conventional antihistamines [6]. The present study was designed to compare Luffa comp.-Heel TM Nasal Spray with a nasal spray containing 20 mg/ml cromolyn sodium (usual concentration marketed in Germany) with respect to both efficacy and tolerance in the therapy of seasonal allergic rhinitis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Equivalence Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Luffa comp.-Heel Nasal Spray with Cromolyn Sodium Spray in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Weiser¹,

Gegenheimer

Klein³

1999

Complement Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The objective of the clinical study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerance of a homeopathic nasal spray in cases of hay fever (seasonal allergic rhinitis) in comparison with the conventional intranasal cromolyn sodium therapy. Patients and Methods: In total, 146 outpatients with symptoms of hay fever were enrolled into the clinical study (randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial) (time of treatment: 42 days). The homeopathic remedy (Luffa comp.-Heel ™ Nasal Spray, dosage: 0.14 ml per application, 4 times per a day / naris) consisted of a fixed combination made up of Luffa operculata, Galphimia glauca, histamine, and sulfur. The main outcome measure of the efficacy was the quality of life as measured by means of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life-Questionnaire (RQLQ). The tolerance of the trial medication was registered by means of global assessment, rhinoscopy, recording of adverse events and with the aid of vital and laboratory parameters. Results:The results of the study demonstrate a quick and lasting effect of the treatment. This effect was independent from the medication applied and produced a nearly complete remission of the hay fever symptoms. The RQLQ global score changed significantly in the course of the treatment, indicating therapeutic equivalence between the two forms of treatment. Adverse systemic effects did not occur. Local adverse events appeared in 3 patients. Conclusions:The study proved that, for the treatment of hay fever, the homeopathic nasal spray is as efficient and well tolerable as the conventional therapy with cromolyn sodium.

show abstract

A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glauca

Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art

A Randomized Equivalence Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Luffa comp.-Heel Nasal Spray with Cromolyn Sodium Spray in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About