Hamamelis 30c homeopathic tablets

BACKGROUND: A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. METHODS: Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Abstract licence: CC BY

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

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

Abstract Background Hong Kong is geographically located in the province of Guangdong which, after Hubei, has been the region of China second-most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the pathognomonic symptoms of the named disease, homeopathic symptoms are always more helpful for homeopathic prescriptions. Aim This study reports and summarizes the homeopathic symptoms observed in 18 confirmed/suspected epidemiologically related cases in cluster outbreaks of COVID-19 in Hong Kong in early 2020. Methods Homeopathic symptoms from this case series were collected from 18 consecutive patients who, in addition to their concurrent conventional treatment or traditional Chinese medicine, actively sought help from homeopathy as an adjunctive measure for symptomatic relief from COVID-19. Cases were categorized according to outbreak clusters, focusing mainly on the homeopathic symptoms. In the analysis, frequency of all homeopathic medicines, common rubrics in all the cases, common rubrics in each of the top-ranked remedies, and differentiating symptoms for each top-ranked remedy were determined. Results Homeopathic symptoms of 18 cases, each identified as mild and belonging to one of six separate clusters, are reported. Eighteen common symptoms screened out of 79 selected rubrics constituted two sets of homeopathic symptom pictures: Bryonia alba (n = 4) and Gelsemium sempervirens (n = 12). Eight and seven differentiating features, respectively, were identified for Bryonia alba and Gelsemium sempervirens. Conclusion The common symptoms of 18 mild COVID-19 cases constituted two sets of homeopathic symptom pictures, indicating Bryonia alba or Gelsemium sempervirens; they were indicated in 4 and 12 cases, respectively, out of the 18 in total.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND