Assessing Efficacy by Comparing Whole Therapy Settings without Placebo Groups - Chances for Homoeopathy Research?

Abstract: Research of effectiveness is unpopular with homoeopathic therapists, because the research results are not important for their therapeutical decision-making, i.e., the finding of the individually appropriate homoeopathic remedy. Therefore, study designs are necessary which result in a good validity without requiring a great deal of energy. Instead of the comparison with the placebo groups, the comparison of complete therapeutic systems is proposed. 'Mere is no sense in using placebo groups in homoeopathic research because the active substance in homoeopathy never is definitely known. 'Me interactions between the therapist and patient have the character of placebo and nocebo effects. The pure effect of the drug cannot be investigated because the evident effectiveness of the complete therapeutic system 'homoeopathy' is important. However, randomisation is of great importance also in homoeopathic research studies. This is the conclusion of the study 'Allopathoic versus homoeopathic intervention: A methodical study in obstretics' conducted within the framework of the Swiss National Research Program 34 'Complementary Medicine'. In a 'matched-pair design' the Most important outcome criteria in obstretics were compared between a group of 117 women with homoeopathic medical care and a group of 85 women with allopathic medical care. Homoeopathic therapy proved to be equal to the allopathic treatment in all outcome criteria. Apart from the lack of randomization this is an indirect evidence for the effectiveness of homoeopathic medical care in obstetrics. In two criteria homoeopathy was superior to allopathy: The rate of sectio caesarea in the homoeopathy group was three times lower than in the allopathic group (4% vs. 12%), the rate of tocolysis in the homoeopathy group was 0%, in the allopathy group 20%.

Keyword(s): Homöopathie