Mixed pollen 30c homeopathic tablets
Available from pharmacies, supermarkets, and retail outlets
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.
2 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Homeopathic mixed pollen on the MHRA register
Mixed pollen 30c homeopathic tablets
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. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary.
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: 10 · Randomised trials: 4 · 1988–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
F Dantas, H Rampes
British Homeopathic Journal, 2000
Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, Legg LA, et al.
2017
- Placebos
- Homeopathy
BackgroundA 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.MethodsLiterature 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.ResultsForty-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.ConclusionsThe 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
L Long, E Ernst
British Homeopathic Journal, 2001
N. Roberts, R. Fyfe, J. Woodbridge, et al.
Scientific Reports, 2018
Furong Li, M. Gaillard, Xianyong Cao, et al.
Earth-Science Reviews, 2020
Caroline Holzmann, Johannes Karg, Matthias Reiger, et al.
Allergy, 2025
- Poaceae
- Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal
- Pollen
Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 2025
Ruilin Wen, Jule Xiao, Jiawei Fan, et al.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 2017
Réjane Streiff, A. Ducousso, C. Lexer, et al.
Molecular Ecology, 1999
Wiebke Sickel, M. Ankenbrand, G. Grimmer, et al.
BMC Ecology, 2015
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.