[Omeo33] Art 0004 - Homeopathy, 2006, 95 (3), 123-130

[Gino Santini]

Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: 
symptom collection and analysis
G Dominici, P Bellavite, C di Stanislao, P Gulia and G Pitari

Background - Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings) are 
fundamental to homeopathy. Since most of the data from available 
provings have not been statistically evaluated, it is unclear how 
specific reported symptoms are and how they differ from those 
reported by people taking placebo.
Method - We combine and analyse data from two different homeopathic 
pathogenic trials-including 10 and 11 provers, respectively, and both 
including 30% placebo-to test the null hypothesis that there is no 
significant difference between the number of symptoms in placebo and 
verum groups.
Results - The principal results were: a) placebo reported less 
symptoms than verum groups; b) symptom distribution according to 
predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or 
duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically 
different between placebo and verum group at a high level of 
significance (P<0.001): compared to verum, placebo provers reported 
less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) 
symptoms; c) within repertory categories, other differences were 
detected; d) the two groups differ in terms of the duration of each 
symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent 
in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a 
decreasing number of symptoms with time. Placebo provers did not show 
such a temporal pattern.
Conclusions - If confirmed by other studies these results would 
demonstrate the non-equivalence between homeopathic medicines in high 
dilution and placebo and contribute to the improvement of proving 
methodology and evaluation.

Disponibile il full-text su richiesta
-- 

=== mailto:g.santini a ismo.it