Download PDF
Homeopathy 2025; 114(04): 217-218
DOI: 10.1055/a-2698-1976
Special Editorial

Improving the Relevance of Research in Homeopathy

Authors

  • Lee Kayne

    1   President, Faculty of Homeopathy, London, United Kingdom
Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Reading these pages and having attended the recent congress of the Homeopathy Research Institute, I've been heartened to see an increasing quantity and quality of scientific research in homeopathy being conducted from around the world. While it's important for us to understand how homeopathy works, it's equally important to demonstrate that homeopathy does work and I would like to see more practice-related research submitted to Homeopathy.

As readers are well aware, clinical trials are regarded as the gold standard in medical evidence and randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), in particular, are central to the concept of evidence-based medicine. In homeopathy, however, where treatment is individualised, past and present context-sensitive, and closely related to the therapeutic encounter, RCTs cannot readily capture the core principles of practice.

Indeed, the RCT model is built on assumptions that directly conflict with homeopathic principles, focusing on uniform interventions and outcomes, imposing strict eligibility criteria that exclude many potential beneficiaries, and minimising interaction between the patient and the practitioner. Such demands for homogeneity strip away the features that define homeopathy and create an artificial clinical environment for the sake of trial design,[1] a mismatch that helps explain why results from homeopathy RCTs are often equivocal or contradictory. Two systematic reviews led by this journal's esteemed Editor found only limited convincing efficacy after methodological flaws were accounted for.[2] [3] Does this mean homeopathy is ineffective…or rather that the RCT method is an inadequate basis for forming such a conclusion?

Opponents argue the former and that, by virtue of our claim that homeopathy cannot be forced into a conventional trial framework that seeks to measure efficacy within tightly controlled parameters, we are admitting it does not work. Yet at the same time, they refuse to accept that alternative methods of investigation and reporting might better reflect the effectiveness of homeopathic practice and outcomes in the real world. So it's not evidence unless it's ‘their’ evidence? Except when their evidence does not produce the outcomes they desire – then they may fail to publish the results[4] or simply note that “many RCTs can render…results of little relevance to clinical practice”.[5]

Those same opponents label research by clinical case series, outcome studies and observational reports as “low-level evidence” within the traditional hierarchy. That may have historically been the case for conventional medicine (though this is changing slowly) but, for homeopathy, the advantages and opportunities are clear. Capturing the complexity of individualised prescribing in real-world clinical situations and allowing for consideration of the role of the consultation are unique areas of our practice, key to understanding the effectiveness of homeopathy.

I'm not suggesting RCTs be abandoned completely; they retain an important role in testing specific hypotheses, particularly for non-individualised interventions and adjunctive uses of homeopathy. We should still seek to meet the wider community on their terms if we can. But RCTs should be complemented by designs better suited to the holistic nature of homeopathy.

Long-term cohort studies in Germany and Switzerland have followed thousands of homeopathy patients over several years, documenting significant and sustained improvements in symptom severity and, perhaps more importantly, quality of life across a range of chronic conditions.[6] These studies provide compelling evidence that homeopathy can be associated with measurable patient benefits and offer valuable insights into our practice.

Case series can also serve to inform new research hypotheses. A well-documented case series on migraine, eczema or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, for example, may highlight response patterns that stimulate more formal investigation. When systematically reported, using frameworks such as the CARE guidelines or the HOM-CASE guidelines specific to homeopathy, case reports move beyond anecdote, becoming transparent, replicable contributions to the scientific record.[7] Case series capture aspects of the therapeutic intervention that trials often ignore, such as the role of the consultation, patient narratives and subjective well-being. These should not be considered in any way secondary; they are central to the practice of homeopathy. By documenting them carefully, case series can illuminate facets of healing that numbers alone might obscure.

One of the most important advantages of case research is accessibility. Unlike basic science and RCTs, which require institutional infrastructure, expert operators, extensive funding, specialised equipment and statistical analysis, case reports can be generated by practitioners themselves. With modest training in systematic documentation, homeo-paths in everyday practice can contribute to the evidence base. This democratisation of research empowers practitioners to transform clinical experience into shared knowledge.

Other forms of real-world research such as pragmatic clinical trials provide insights more relevant to clinical practice.[8] N-of-1 trials are based on single-case investigative design but also apply the principles of a conventional crossover RCT: an individual alternates between treatment and control conditions and such studies can yield highly personalised evidence while still contributing to aggregate data.[9] [10] Patient-orientated outcomes, now increasingly recognised in mainstream research, align closely with homeopathy's appreciation for the lived experience of illness and healing.

By combining these approaches, we can develop an evidence base that balances rigour with relevance. Instead of clinging to a rigid hierarchy of what constitutes evidence, homeopathy can champion a more inclusive framework – one that values multiple forms of knowledge and methods of inquiry. With its long tradition of powerful therapeutic encounters and careful case documentation, homeopathy is uniquely positioned to lead such a shift.

For the practitioner, this carries two key messages. First, everything we do in our everyday clinical work has research value. By systematically documenting cases and contributing to case series or databases, practitioners can help shape the collective evidence base. Whether shared via a brief communication in the Simile magazine or with a more detailed case report in these pages, every outcome is important.[11] Second, each practitioner should engage critically with research. Knowledge of study methods and an understanding of when to use which design will be essential for the future credibility of homeopathy.

The Faculty of Homeopathy has an important role to play here in providing guidance and training and by fostering collaborations between practitioners and academic researchers. By supporting and encouraging practitioner contributions, we can produce evidence that reflects the reality of our practice and the benefits for our patients as real people, rather than simply data points.



Publication History

Article published online:
23 October 2025

© 2025. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany