Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2008.11.004
In search of the reliable repertory
Subject Editor:
Publication History
Received04 August 2008
revised23 November 2008
accepted25 November 2008
Publication Date:
29 December 2017 (online)
The development of homeopathic repertories is complex, reflecting history, the emergence of divergent views on homeopathic philosophy, and differences in opinion as to what constitutes reliable materia medica.
The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the content of repertories examining its reliability, the quality of source material, and the evidence that it forms a reliable bridge between case and materia medica. Reliability may be improved by demanding higher standards and consistency of evidence. However, it is necessary to understand what constitutes evidence, and the importance of taking into account the context in which practitioners use the repertory. This paper will suggest that rather than demanding certain ‘standards’, practitioners will be better served by a greater understanding of the sources of knowledge and by reflexivity of the key players in the construction of our repertories.
‘The repertory’ is considered generally here as the deconstruction of different repertories. The strengths and weaknesses in particular, whilst interesting, would be the topic of another a paper in its own right. Where individual repertories are mentioned, they are referred to as examples only.
-
References
- 1 Baas C. The nuts and bolts of homeopathy. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 117-118.
- 2 Rutten A.L.B., Stopher C.F., Lugten R.F.G. et al. A Bayesian perspective on the reliability of homeopathic repertories. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 88-93.
- 3 Winston J. The Reliability of our Repertory. Homœopath Links 2005; 18: 7-8.
- 4 Allan K. A tutorial and workbook for the homeopathic repertory. 2nd edn. Redmond USA: Homeopathic Tutorials; 2002.
- 5 Dam K. The mind of the repertory: how to improve the repertory. Homœopath Links 1996; 9 (01) 18-23.
- 6 Dimitriadis G. Homœopathic diagnosis. Sydney: Hahnemann Institute; 2004.
- 7 Kishore J. Evolution of homœopathic repertories and repertorisation. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2004.
- 8 Sherr J. The dynamics and methodology of homœopathic provings. 2nd ed. Malvern, UK: Dynamis Books; 1994.
- 9 Van Zandvoort R. A chat with Roger van Zandvoort. Similia 2007; 19 (01) 35-38.
- 10 Schroyens F. Blueprint for a new repertory. Version 8 Synthesis Homeopathic Repertorium. 2001. London: Homeopathic Book Publishers;
- 11 Dantas F., Fisher P., Walach H. et al. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (01) 4-16.
- 12 Sherr J., Quirk T. Systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trails: an excess of rigour?. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 273-278.
- 13 Denzin N., Lincoln Y. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1994. London: Sage Publications;
- 14 Fossey E., Harvey C., McDermott F. et al. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Aust New Zeal J Psychiatr 2002; 36: 717-732.
- 15 Giacomini M.K. The Rocky Road: qualitative research as evidence. Evid Base Med 2001; 6: 4-6.
- 16 Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative Research in Health Care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320: 50-52.
- 17 Sherr J. Are we serious?. Homœopathic Links 2000; 13 (02) 80-82.
- 18 Wright Hubbard E. Rubrics in Bönninghausen not in Kent. J Am Inst Homeopath 1956; 49 (07) 203-206.
- 19 Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
- 20 Vithoulkas V. Introduction to the project “Confirmed Repertory. http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/285/lang,en/. 2008 [accessed 19.11.08].
- 21 Jones M., Higgs J. Will evidence-based practice take the reasoning out of practice?. Higgs J., Jones M. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. 2000. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann; 301-315.
- 22 Rutten A.L.B., Stopher C.F., Lugten R.F.G. et al. New repertory, new considerations. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 16-21.
- 23 Scott-Findlay S. Evidence, Research, Knowledge: a Call for Conceptual Clarity. Worldview Evid-Based Nursing 2004; 1 (02) 92-97.
- 24 Upshur R., Van Den Kerkhof E., Goel V. Meaning and measurement: An inclusive model of evidence in health care. J Eval Clin Pract 2001; 7: 91-96.
- 25 Achinstein P. The book of evidence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
- 26 Thompson T.D.B. Can the caged bird sing? Reflections on the application of qualitative research methods to case study design in homeopathic medicine. BMC Med Res Meth 2004; 4 (04) 1-9.
- 27 Dobrow M.J., Goel V., Upshur R.E.G. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 207-217.
- 28 Verhoef M.J., Lewith G., Ritenbaugh R. et al. Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT. Compl Ther Med 2005; 13: 206-212.
- 29 Weatherley-Jones E., Thompson E.A., Thomas K.J. The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 186-189.
- 30 Greenhalgh T., Worrall J.G. From EBM to CSM: the evolution of context-sensitive medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 1997; 3 (02) 105-108.
- 31 Barry C.A., Britten N., Barber N. et al. Using Reflexivity to Optimize Teamwork in Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res 1999; 9 (01) 26-44.
- 32 Goldenberg M.J. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2621-2632.
- 33 Phenix P. Realms of meaning. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill; 1962. [Cited in: Scott-Findlay S. Evidence, Research, Knowledge: A Call for Conceptual Clarity. Worldview Evid-Based Nursing 2004; 1(2): 92–97].