Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 24 · Randomised trials: 14 · 2000–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Toma CC, Marrelli M, Puticiu M, et al.
2024
Arnica L. genus (Asteraceae) comprises perennial herbs native to the temperate and boreal parts of the northern hemisphere. Arnica montana is the main species. It shows different biological activities, such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antifungal, and antitumor effects. The Arnica formulations are mainly used for pain management. This systematic review is aimed at summarizing the studies focusing on the use of Arnica products on pain and inflammatory signs due to traumatic injuries related to sport and surgical interventions as well as to arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. Both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic formulations are taken into account. This paper only includes manuscripts published in mainstream journals. A literature search from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases has been carried out using a combination of the keywords "Arnica", "trauma", "sport", "injury", "injuries", and "pain". According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria for this study, 42 eligible papers, focusing on both Arnica alone and formulations containing a mixture of plant extracts, have been finally selected. This review critically discusses the in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies dealing with Arnica products, reporting both positive and negative outcomes, thus providing perspectives for future research on the plant pharmacological potential.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Borkens Y, Endruscheit U, Lübbers CW
2024
- Homeopathy
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Austria
Homeopathy was first postulated by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and 220 years later homeopathy is the most popular and widespread alternative medicine. Partly, it is also part of the national healthcare and insurance systems but homeopathy is not without controversy within the medical and healthcare community. Its implausible basic assumptions, some of which contradict natural laws, do not lead us to expect that its remedies have any specific effect. In fact, there is no study or systematic review to date that reliably certifies homeopathy to have an effect beyond the placebo effect and other context effects. In this respect it must be disconcerting how widely homeopathy is applied and represented in therapeutic practice. It indeed claims a role within scientific (evidence-based) medicine but cannot substantiate this claim. It displays clear characteristics of pseudoscience [1]. This implies a lot of problems, such as misleading people and tackling medical ethics up to scientific publication practices. Furthermore, it turns out that quite a few people do not know exactly what homeopathy is, which may lead them to make wrong decisions for their personal health. This article summarizes the information about homeopathy and its problematic implications and serves as a general introduction to this topic and its unacceptable role in today's medicine.The medical irrelevance of the sham method of homeopathy has been proven with more than sufficient probability [2]. As a major testimonial, the statement "Homeopathic products and practices" of the European (EASAC 2017) can be regarded. The primary aim of this brief report is therefore not to take another look at homeopathy from a medical scientific perspective, but rather focus attention on the implications of the still continuous and largely uncritically accepted existence of this method in medical practice, in the medical scientific sphere and in the judgement of the general public.
Abstract licence: CC BY
C. Mellis
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2018
R. Mathie, H. Roniger, M. Van Wassenhoven, et al.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2012
Annekathrin Ücker, S. Baumgartner, A. Sokol, et al.
Homeopathy, 2018
R. Mathie, S. Lloyd, L. Legg, et al.
Systematic Reviews, 2014
S. Brien, L. Lachance, Phil Prescott, et al.
Rheumatology, 2011
R. Mathie, Susanne Ulbrich-Zürni, P. Viksveen, et al.
Homeopathy, 2018
J. Davidson, C. Crawford, J. Ives, et al.
The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 2011
G. Vithoulkas
Journal of Medicine and Life, 2017
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.