Clinical trials of homeopathy in urological disorders: a systematic review

Chaturbhuja Nayak; Rajkumar Manchanda; Anil Khurana; Deepti Singh Chalia; Jürgen Pannek; Abhijit Chattopadhyay; Munmun Koley; Subhranil Saha

doi:10.1515/jcim-2020-0068

Article

Clinical trials of homeopathy in urological disorders: a systematic review

Chaturbhuja Nayak , Rajkumar Manchanda , Anil Khurana , Deepti Singh Chalia , Jürgen Pannek , Abhijit Chattopadhyay , Munmun Koley and Subhranil Saha

Published/Copyright: July 14, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine Volume 18 Issue 1

Abstract

Objectives

Homeopathy remains one of the most sought after therapies for urological disorders. The aim of this paper was to systematically review the available clinical researches of homeopathy in the said conditions.

Content

Relevant trials published between Jan 1, 1981 and Dec 31, 2016 (with further extension up to Dec 31, 2017) was identified through a comprehensive search. Internal validity of the randomized trials and observational studies was assessed by The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria respectively, homeopathic model validity by Mathie’s six judgmental domains, and quality of homeopathic individualization by Saha’s criteria.

Summary

Four controlled (three randomized and one sequentially allocated controlled trial) trials were reviewed and 14 observational studies alongside – all demonstrated positive effect of homeopathy. Major focus areas were benign prostatic hypertrophy and renal stones. One of the four controlled trials had ‘adequate’ model validity, but suffered from ‘high’ risk of bias. None of the non-randomized studies was tagged as ‘ideal’ as all of those underperformed in the MINORS rating. Nine observational studies had ‘adequate’ model validity and quality criteria of individualization. Proof supporting individualized homeopathy from the controlled trials remained promising, still inconclusive.

Outlook

Although observational studies appeared to produce encouraging effects, lack of adequate quality data from randomized trials hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding the efficacy or effectiveness of homeopathy in urological disorders. The findings from the RCTs remained scarce, underpowered and heterogeneous, had low reliability overall due to high or uncertain risk of bias and sub-standard model validity. Well-designed trials are warranted with improved methodological robustness.

Funding

None; Registration web-link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018081624&ID=CRD42018081624.

Keywords: controlled trials; homeopathy; systematic review; urological disorder

Corresponding author: Chaturbhuja Nayak, MD (Hom), President, Homoeopathy University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India; and Former Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India, Mobile: +9958495858, E-mail: drcbnayak@gmail.com

Acknowledgment

We appreciate the kind help received from Mrs. Meenakshi Bhatia, Librarian In-Charge, Central Council for Research in Homeopathic, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India.

Research funding: We received no funding for the project. The institutions have no role to play in analysis of the study results and publication of the paper.
Author contributions: CN, RKM, AK, MK, SS: concept, design, literature search, data extraction and interpretation, and preparation of the article; DSC, JP, AC: data extraction and interpretation, preparation of the article. All the authors edited, reviewed, and approved the final article.
Competing interests: We declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Frass, M, Strassl, RP, Friehs, H, Müllner, M, Kundi, M, Kaye, AD. Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J 2012;12:45–56.Search in Google Scholar

2. Relton, C, Cooper, K, Viksveen, P, Fibert, P, Thomas, K. Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review. Homeopathy 2017;106:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2017.03.002.Search in Google Scholar

3. Srinivasan, R, Sugumar, VR. Spread of traditional medicines in india: results of national sample survey organization’s perception survey on use of AYUSH. J Evid Based Complement Altern Med 2017;22:194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156587215607673.Search in Google Scholar

4. Homeopathy Research Institute. Homeopathy use around the world. Available from: https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/ [Accessed 30 Aug 2019].Search in Google Scholar

5. WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/312342/9789241515436-eng.pdf?ua=1 [Accessed 18 Sept 2019].Search in Google Scholar

6. Dhawale, ML. Principles and Practice of Homeopathic, 3rd ed. Mumbai: Dr. M L Dhawale Memorial Trust; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

7. Mathie, RT, Robinson, TW. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in medical practice: a prospective,research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy 2006;95:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2006.06.002.Search in Google Scholar

8. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.Search in Google Scholar

9. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gotzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PloS Med 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.Search in Google Scholar

10. Beller, EM, Glasziou, PP, Altman, DG, Hopewell, S, Bastian, H, Chalmers, I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419.Search in Google Scholar

11. Shamseer, L, Moher, D, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Liberati, A, Petticrew, A, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2014;349:g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.Search in Google Scholar

12. Moher, D, Shamseer, L, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Liberati, A, Petticrew, M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.Search in Google Scholar

13. Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, Gøtzsche, PC, Jüni, P, Moher, D, Oxman, AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.Search in Google Scholar

14. Mathie, RT, Lloyd, SM, Legg, LA, Clausen, J, Moss, S, Davidson, JRT, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014;3:142. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142.Search in Google Scholar

15. Sterne, J, Higgins, J, Reeves, B, editors. A cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: for non-randomized studies of interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI). Version 1.0.0; 2014. Available from: https://www.riskofbias.info [Accessed 3 Dec 2017].Search in Google Scholar

16. Sterne, JA, Hernán, MA, Reeves, BC, Savović, J, Berkman, ND, Viswanathan, M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.Search in Google Scholar

17. Mathie, RT, Van Wassenhoven, M, Jacobs, J, Oberbaum, M, Roniger, H, Frye, J, et al. Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2015;104:164–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2017.07.003.Search in Google Scholar

18. Saha, S, Koley, M, Ganguly, S, Rath, P, Roy Chowdhury, P, Hossain, SI. Developing the criteria for evaluating quality of individualization in homeopathic clinical trial reporting: a preliminary study. J Integr Med 2014;12:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-4964(14)60009-1.Search in Google Scholar

19. Saruggia, M, Corghi, E. Effects of homoeopathic dilutions of China rubra on intradialytic symptomatology in patients treated with chronic haemodialysis. Brit Hom J 1992;81:86–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-0785(05)80502-2.Search in Google Scholar

20. Kurz, C, Nagele, F, Zorzi, M, Karras, H, Enzelsherger, H. Does homeopathy improve irritable bladder symptoms?. Gynaecol Obstetric Circumfer 1993;33(1 Suppl):330–1.10.1159/000272290Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Naude, DF. The efficacy of homoeopathic similimum in the treatment of nocturnal enuresis in children between five and eight years who reside in children’s home. Liga: Lecture Directory.Search in Google Scholar

22. Hati, AK, Paital, B, Naik, KN, Mishra, AK, Chainy GBN, Nanda, LK. Constitutional, organopathic and combined homeopathic treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy: a clinical trial. Homeopathy 2012;101:217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2012.08.005.Search in Google Scholar

23. Gupta, G. Ultrasonographic assessment of benign prostate hypertrophy cases in response to homoeopathic drugs. Asian Homoeo J 1994;10–17.Search in Google Scholar

24. Rau, MT. FOMEPIKEHL drops for the treatment of the prostate adenoma: observation of the results of the application. SANUM Post 2003;64:26–8.Search in Google Scholar

25. Gupta, G, Gupta, N, Singh, V, Chaudhary, M, Singh, M. Evidence based study on cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia in response to homoeopathic drugs. Homoeopathic Heritage 2006;31–41.Search in Google Scholar

26. Gupta, G, Singh, JP, Tandon, S, Singh, S, Nayak, C, Singh, H, Raveendar, C, et al. Evidence based clinical study to assess the usefulness of homoeopathic medicines in patients of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2010;4:49–56.10.53945/2320-7094.1764Search in Google Scholar

27. Heidl, R. An observation of application of FOMEPIKEHL D5 drops: statistical evaluation. SANUM Post 2010;92:23–6.Search in Google Scholar

28. Malipatil, CV. Thesis: a clinical study of homoeopathic management in benign prostatic hypertrophy. Bangalore: Submitted to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

29. Thomas, B. Clinical evaluation of efficacy of “Clearstone Drops” in the management of urinary calculi. Homeopathic for All 2010;44–9.Search in Google Scholar

30. Siddiqui, VA, Singh, H, Gupta, J, Nayak, C, Singh, V, Sinha, MN, et al. A multicentre observational study to ascertain the role of homoeopathic therapy in urolithiasis. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2011;5:30–9.10.53945/2320-7094.1718Search in Google Scholar

31. Johny, J. Homoeopathic constitutional medicine in benign hypertrophy of prostate. Available from: https://www.homeobook.com/pdf/homoeopathy-bhp.pdf [Accessed 23 Nov 2017].Search in Google Scholar

32. Oberai, P, Roja, V, Ramesh, D, Arya, DD, Reddy, GRC, Sharma, SK, et al. Homoeopathic medicines in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicentric prospective observational study. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2012;6:16–25.10.53945/2320-7094.1694Search in Google Scholar

33. Dhawankar, NV. Chelidonium majus as spasmolytic / muscle relaxant in renal colic. Asian J Homoeo 2013;2:43–9.Search in Google Scholar

34. Gupta, G, Singh, S. Role of homoeopathic medicines in prostate enlargement: a retrospective observational study. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2016;10:266–71. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7168.194323.Search in Google Scholar

35. Gupta, N, Singh, R. Clinical verification of homoeopathic medicines in benign hypertrophy of prostate – a preliminary study. AYUHOM 2017;4:68–75.Search in Google Scholar

36. Patil, S, Patil, S. Clinical study of prophylactic action of Berberis vulgaris in renal calculi. National Homoeo Recorder 2016;13:10–3.Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2020-0068).

Received: 2019-10-31

Accepted: 2020-03-31

Published Online: 2020-07-14

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2020-0068

Keywords for this article

controlled trials; homeopathy; systematic review; urological disorder