Research in Provings/Cases/Plants I - PR01
|Kongress: 72nd LMHI Homeopathic World Congress Leipzig 2017 (DZH17)|
90 min, englisch
Inhalt / abstract
Validating the clinical predictive value of homeopathic provings – a pilot study comparing retrospectively collected proving and clinical data (Todd Hoover, PR01/01)
Homeopathic provings (also called homeopathic pathogenetic trials) are currently used by the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the U.S. (HPCUS) to evaluate homeopathic drugs in the monograph review process. Provings originated in 1766 have been progressively updated to conform to modern standards for ethical and scientific conduct of human trials.
Provings are considered to be a primary data source to guide selection of a remedy for treatment. To date, no studies have formally examined the correlation between data obtained from provings and clinical effectiveness, when such data is used as a guide to select treatment.
This trial is a 2 year Retrospective Chart Review of patients (more than 150 cases) treated by a group of clinicians, using the Vithoulkas Compass System for homeopathic remedy selection and record-keeping. Collected data on treatment selection rubrics will be compared to data obtained from modern and historical provings of the same remedy.
The trial is designed to compare data obtained in provings to rubrics used in the selection of a homeopathic medicine with correlation to the reported effect from treatment. This preliminary study should yield information on the relevance of provings to clinical treatment choice and outcome, comparative data on historical and modern provings, and the value of particular rubrics to treatment outcome, using likelihood ratios. This information is relevant for clinical practice.
Keywords HPCUS, monograph process, regulation, approval of new homeopathic drugs and design for future homeopathic studies. This study is financially supported by HPCUS.
So-called placebo-symptoms in a homeopathic drug proving (HDP) – criteria of exclusion or inclusion? – A change of paradigm? (Reinhard Flick, PR01/02)
Until today, in the course of a HDP, only the new or changed symptoms of the verum-group of provers are considered and not the symptoms of provers who had taken raw globules that had not been moistened by the proving substance (placebo-provers). The changes, hereby, are attributed to the provingsituation or regarded as a result of expectations and are not put into context with the proving substance. They are classified as worthless and are omitted in the further analysis.
The reasons for these considerations by the authors are regularly observed clear proving-symptoms in the group of placebo-provers. These are casually, and in part even more distinct as in the verum-group.
During the presentation the authors show a listing of symptoms that occurred in placebo-provers in comparison with symptoms of the corresponding verum-group of a HDP (sources: provings conducted by the authors and some examples of other proving-coordinators). It will be demonstrated that symptoms of placebo-provers are thoroughly comparable in quality, with those of the verum-provers and in some cases surpass them in completeness and wellobserved aspects.
Open for discussion remains the question: what is the significance of the clearly observable agent in the proving-phase – as well as during therapy. The hypothesis that it could be something fixed inside the globules,which could not be proven until now, should, however, be increasingly questioned. Also, the increasing legal regulation of clinical trials in Europe has to be questioned, and, furthermore the view of its usefulness.