Homeopathy
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732307
Original Research Article

Generalizability of Homeopathic Prognostic Factor Research Outcome in COVID-19 Treatment: Comparison of Data

1  Independent Researcher, Breda, The Netherlands
,
Anjali Miglani
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Peter Gold
3  American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), United States
,
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Moumita Chakraborty
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Baljeet Singh Meena
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Kavita Sharma
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Meeta Gupta
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Brender Sharma
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Ashok Sharma
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Purnima Rani
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
,
Rahul Kumar Singh
2  Directorate of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare Department AYUSH, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background/Objective During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several homeopathic prognostic factor research (PFR) projects have been undertaken. We found two projects with comparable outcomes to assess consistency and possible flaws.

Methods Two comparisons were made. (1) Outcome of a PFR data collection from the Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) by about 100 doctors with 541 cases was compared with a previous analysis of 161 cases in the same database. (2) The updated LMHI database was also compared with a data collection carried out in India by four doctors with a total of 1,445 cases. Differences that resulted in conflicting outcomes (indication in one, contraindication in the other) were examined for possible causes.

Results There was only a single outcome in the updated LMHI database that conflicted with the previous dataset, and this could have been due to statistical variation. The Indian data contained many cases, from few doctors, while the LMHI database had few cases per doctor, but many doctors. The overlap between the projects (individual cases entered in both) was between zero and 22%. In 72 comparisons we found six (8.3%) conflicting outcomes. Possible causes were statistical error due to small numbers of cases and/or observers, confirmation bias, and keynote prescribing if this resulted in symptoms being inadequately checked.

Conclusion There was little conflict between the outcomes of the two versions of one project and between the two different PFR projects. Differences could mostly be explained by causes that can be managed. This consistency should primarily be interpreted as showing a strong overall consensus between homeopathic practitioners worldwide, but with variation of consensus between small groups of practitioners.



Publication History

Received: 28 April 2021

Accepted: 08 June 2021

Publication Date:
19 October 2021 (online)

© 2021. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany