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

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.

Keywords

COVID-19 - homeopathy - prognostic factor research - likelihood ratio - consensus

• References

• 1 To KLA, Fok YYY. Homeopathic clinical features of 18 patients in COVID-19 outbreaks in Hong Kong. Homeopathy 2020; 109: 146-162
• 2 Jethani B, Gupta M, Wadhwani P. et al. Clinical characteristics and remedy profiles of patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Homeopathy 2021; 110: 86-93
• 3 Wadhwani GG, Chaudhary A, Chadha A, Kaur L, Chaudhary K, Choudhary V. Assessing the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding COVID-19 and homoeopathy among the citizens of Delhi and national capital region, India: a cross-sectional online survey. Int J Community Med Public Health 2020; 7: 4504
• 4 Rutten L, Smedley T, Ives G. et al. Data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic: learning from experience, resulting in a Bayesian repertory. Homeopathy 2021; 110: 94-101
• 5 Manchanda RK, Miglani A, Chakraborty M. et al. Impact of bias in data collection of COVID-19 cases. Homeopathy. Epub 2021, Sep 9
• 6 Clificol. Accessed April 18, 2021 at: https://www.clificol.net/en/Information-for-National-Clificol-Coordinators
• 7 Vaishampayan S, Mutreja K, Lambe S, Shah J, Shaikh G. Mercurius solubilis as genus epidemicus for the COVID-19 Pandemic. Homeopathy 2020; 109: 271-272
• 8 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Repertory and likelihood ratio: time for structural changes. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 120-124
• 9 Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis. Collecting clinical experience of homeopathic support in COVID-19: Collecting clinical cases, 14, 25.07.20. . Accessed February 18, 2021 at: https://www.lmhi.org/Home/Covid19