Homeopathy 2007; 96(01): 4-16
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2006.11.005
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2006

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

F. Dantas
1  Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil
2  Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil
,
P. Fisher
3  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, UK
,
H. Walach
4  University of Northampton and Samueli Institute, European Office, UK
,
F. Wieland
,
D.P. Rastogi
5  Central Council of Research in Homeopathy, India
,
H. Teixeira
1  Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil
,
D. Koster
,
J.P. Jansen
,
J. Eizayaga
6  Universidad Maimonides, Argentina
,
M.E.P. Alvarez
7  Escuela Nacional de Medicina y Homeopatia, Mexico
,
M. Marim
,
P. Belon
,
L.L.M. Weckx
2  Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations

Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Received23 March 2006
revised26 June 2006

accepted06 November 2006

Publication Date:
13 December 2017 (online)

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 www.sciencedirect.com/homp/