Homeopathic aggravations: a systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials

Grabia, S; Ernst, E

doi:10.1016/s1475-4916(03)00007-9

Cited by 49 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Grabia and Ernst (24) found in a systematic review of homeopathic aggravations in 25 placebo-controlled RCTs, 33 adverse effects in the placebo groups and 97 in the homeopathy groups. No grading of the adverse effects was given in the article.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights:• This review address the naive assumption that because of the generally diluted doses used homeopathy must be safe• This review touches the neglected issue of the distinction between homeopathic aggravation, adverse reactions and adverse effects• We found a similar risk for homeopathic treatment compared to controls such as placebo and conventional medicine. Words: 5,187 Abstract ObjectivesHomeopathy is a popular treatment modality among patient, however there is sparse research about adverse effects of homeopathy. A concept unique for homeopathy, is homeopathic aggravation that is understood as a transient worsening of the patients' symptoms before an 2 expected improvement occurs. From a risk perspective it is vital that a distinction between homeopathic aggravations and adverse effects is established. There is a lack of systematic information on how frequent adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations are reported in studies. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Design and settingSixteen electronic databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The searches were limited from the year 1995 to January 2011. Forty-one RCTs, with a total of 6.055 participants were included. A subtotal of 39 studies was included in the additional metaanalysis. ResultsA total of 28 trials (68%) reported adverse effects and five trials (12%) reported homeopathic aggravations. The meta-analysis (including six subgroup comparisons) demonstrated that no significant difference was found between homeopathy and control with OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14, I 2 = 54%. More than two third of the adverse effects were classified as grade 1 (68%) and two third were classified as grade 2 (25%) and grade 3 (6%) according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects. Homeopathic aggravation was classified as grade 1 (98%) and grade 3 (2%), suggesting that homeopathic aggravations were reported to be less severe than adverse effects. The methodological quality according to a method recommended in the Cochrane handbook for RCTs, was high. ConclusionAdverse effects including the concept of homeopathic aggravations are commonly reported in trials. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects to be similar for patients randomized to homeopathic treatment compared to patients randomized to placebo and conventional medicine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This reaction is seen as a favourable response to the treatment and is expected to be followed by an improvement (2,(21)(22)(23). In 2003, Grabia and Ernst (24) published a systematic review to investigate how homeopathic aggravations was reported in RCTs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Naturopathy is guided by an interesting arrangement of the rule that perceives the body's inborn healing capacity, emphasizes disease prevention, and urges singular responsibility to get ideal wellbeing. Naturopathic hypothesis, the disease is seen as a procedure of disturbance to well-being and consequent recovery with regard to natural healing systems [40].…”

Section: Yoga and Naturopathymentioning

confidence: 99%

History of Indian Traditional Medicine: A Medical Inheritance.

Adhikari¹,

Paul

2018

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Indian Traditional Medicine, the foundation of age-old practice of medicine in the world, has played an essential role in human health care service and welfare from its inception. Likewise, all traditional medicines are of its own regional effects and dominant in the West Asian nations; India, Pakistan, Tibet, and so forth, East Asian nations; China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and so forth, Africa, South and Central America. This article is an attempt to illuminate Indian traditional medical service and its importance, based on recent methodical reviews.Methods: Web search engines for example; Google, Science Direct and Google Scholar were employed for reviews as well as for meta-analysis. Results:There is a long running debate between individuals, who utilize Indian Traditional Medicines for different ailments and disorders, and the individuals who depend on the present day; modern medicine for cure. The civil argument between modern medicine and traditional medicines comes down to a basic truth; each person, regardless of education or sickness, ought to be educated about the actualities concerning their illness and the associated side effects of medicines. Therapeutic knowledge of Indian traditional medicine has propelled various traditional approaches with similar or different theories and methodologies, which are of regional significance. Conclusion:To extend research exercises on Indian Traditional Medicine, in near future, and to explore the phytochemicals; the current review will help the investigators involved in traditional medicinal pursuit.

show abstract

“…Many good quality studies of the last 12 years have yielded negative results, for instance, concerning systematic reviews and meta-analyses 32,33 ; bruising 34,35 ; anxiety 36 ; "provings" (see below) with belladonna, arnica, Pulsatilla and mercury 37-41 and "aggravations" ("good" worsening of symptoms, said by homeopaths to precede patient recovery) 42 . Detailed comments on many of these studies are published 2,5,43 .…”

Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many good quality studies of the last 12 years have yielded negative results, for instance, concerning systematic reviews and meta-analyses [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; infections of the upper respiratory tract and allergic rhinitis 12,13 ; post-operative ileus 14 ; asthma 15 ; warts [16][17][18] ; pain relief and muscle soreness [19][20][21][22][23] ; treatment of adenoid vegetation 24 ; chronic headache [25][26][27][28] ; ear inflammation 29,30 ; eczema 31 ; arthritis 32,33 ; bruising 34,35 ; anxiety 36 ; "provings" (see below) with belladonna, arnica, Pulsatilla and mercury [37][38][39][40][41] and "aggravations" ("good" worsening of symptoms, said by homeopaths to precede patient recovery) 42 . Detailed comments on many of these studies are published 2,5,43 .…”

Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

Almeida

2003

Rev. Hosp. Clin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the recent scientific research progress on homeopathy. METHODOLOGY:Homeopathy was evaluated in terms of its clinical research; in vitro research, and physical foundations. The Medline database was the main reference source for the present research, concerning data of approximately the last 10 years. Secondary references (not available in this database) were obtained by means of direct requests to authors listed in the primary references.RESULTS: Clinical studies and in vitro research indicate the inefficacy of homeopathy. Some few studies with positive results are questionable because of problems with the quality and lack of appropriate experimental controls in these studies. The most recent meta-analyses on the topic yielded negative results. One of the few previous meta-analyses with positive results had serious publication bias problems, and its results were later substantially reconsidered by the main authors. The sparse in vitro homeopathic research with positive results has not been replicated by independent researchers, had serious methodological flaws, or when replicated, did not confirm the initial positive results. A plausible mechanism for homeopathic action is still nonexistent, and its formulation, by now, seems highly unlikely.CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable. Homeopathy, introduced by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann at the beginning of the 19th century, consists of the treatment of the symptoms of a disease by means of ultra-diluted substances. These substances are chosen based on the assumption that they would cause the same symptoms in healthy subjects if ingested in measurable amounts. Minerals, vegetables, or substances obtained from living organisms may be used in the preparation of homeopathic medicines. Supposedly, the effect of these substances becomes stronger the more they are diluted. An important step in their preparation is called the succussion: "shakes" that are applied to the substance after each dilution stage. Although mostly recommended for small afflictions, sometimes radical statements about the effectiveness of homeopathy are made, for instance, concerning the treatment of AIDS 1 .In Brazil, homeopathy is accepted as a medical, pharmaceutical, and veterinary specialty. Homeopathy also has an accepted medical status in England, India, and some States of the United States (Arizona, Connecticut, and Nevada), and its use is widespread in many other countries 2 . The amount of research on homeopathic topics rose substantially in the last 20 years. The analysis of its scientific status, therefore, can already take into account a large number of studies, and such an analysis is obviously important, both in terms of general scientific advancement and for health financing reasons. The objective of the present study was to critically review and assess the current scientific status of homeopathic medici...

show abstract

Homeopathic aggravations: a systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials

Cited by 49 publications

References 23 publications

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

History of Indian Traditional Medicine: A Medical Inheritance.

A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About