Assessment of Likelihood Ratio of the Medicines Enlisted under the Rubric “Pain, Knee, Motion, Amelioration” in the Extremities Chapter of Kent's Repertory

Abstract

Background “Pain, Knee, Motion, Amelioration” in the Extremities chapter of Kent's repertory with 20 enlisted medicines is one of the most frequently encountered rubrics in homeopathy but has not been evaluated systematically. Bayesian statistics resulting in the likelihood ratio (LR) could offer a better evaluation of the enlisted medicines as well as the eligibility of other medicines.

Methods An analytical, epidemiological, longitudinal outcome study was conducted in different outpatient departments of D.N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, on 1,204 patients over 18 months using ORIDL (Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living), whose scale ranges from +4 to −4. Results were documented during each follow-up, continuing until the most recent visit at an average of 3 months. The LRs were reported with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results Analysis included 1,204 cases with 20 enlisted medicines and 37 not enlisted homeopathic medicines. The prevalence of the rubric “Pain, Knee, Motion, Amelioration” was 18.8%. Among the enlisted ones, the medicines having LR ≥ 1.5 were Calcarea carbonicum LR(+) 1.7 (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.5) and Rhus toxicodendron LR(+) 2.3 (95% CI: 1.7 to 3.1). Some medicines with LR ≥ 1.5 that were not previously enlisted in the rubric were Arnica montana LR(+) 2.0 (95% CI: 0.9 to 4.3), Carbo vegetabilis LR(+) 1.8 (95% CI: 0.8 to 4.0), and Staphysagria macrosperma LR(+) 1.5 (95% CI: 0.5 to 5.0). Overall, the findings corroborated the medicines' listing under the rubric in Kent's repertory.

Conclusion There was substantial evidence to link some of the enlisted medicines with the said rubric. Additional research involving a larger population is needed to address the potential confirmation bias.

Keywords

Bayesian statistics - homeopathy - likelihood ratio - Kent's repertory

Authors' Contributions

U.R., Q.S., U.N., M.K., S.H., A.M., D.C., S.B.: methodology, validation, conducting the investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, review, editing. R.K.P., S.M.A., R.G., S.S., S.G.: methodology, validation, conducting the investigation, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. S.S., M.K., L.R.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft, review, editing.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further details, if required, are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Publication History

Received: 24 November 2024

Accepted: 13 January 2025

Article published online:
11 April 2025

• References

• 1 Manchanda R. Improving validity and reliability of homeopathy. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2019; 13: 69-71
• 2 Miglani A, Rutten L, Manchanda RK. Generalisability of prognostic factor research: further analysis of data from the IIPCOS2 study. Homeopathy 2017; 106: 155-159
• 3 Kent JT. Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy (Lecture 33). New Delhi, India: B Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 1991: 213-214
• 4 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Statistical analysis of six repertory rubrics after prospective assessment applying Bayes' theorem. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 26-34
• 5 Rutten AL, Stolper CF, Lugten RF, Barthels RW. A Bayesian perspective on the reliability of homeopathic repertories. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 88-93
• 6 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Repertory and likelihood ratio: time for structural changes. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 120-124
• 7 Rutten L. Prognostic factor research in homoeopathy. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2016; 10: 59-65
• 8 Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P. et al Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: A framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ 2013; 346: e5595
• 9 Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW. et al Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic factor research. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001380
• 10 Rutten L, Rutten M. Fundamentals of Statistics and Clinical Research in Homoeopathy. New Delhi, India: B. Jain Publishers Ltd.; 2016
• 11 Rutten L. Will this medicine work for me? Personalised medicine, homeopathy and prognosis research. HRI Research Article; Issue 22, Winter 2013. Available at: www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/HRI_ResearchArticle_22_Rutten_PrognosisResearch.pdf
• 12 Koley M, Saha S, Das KD. et al. Prospective evaluation of few homeopathic rubrics of Kent's repertory from Bayesian perspective. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med 2016; 21: 277-281
• 13 Barthel H, Klunker W. Synthetic repertory: psychic and general symptoms of the homoeopathic materia medica. 4th ed.. Heidelberg, Germany: Karl F Haug Verlag; 1992
• 14 Reilly D, Mercer SW, Bikker AP, Harrison T. Outcome related to impact on daily living: preliminary validation of the ORIDL instrument. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 139
• 15 Rutten L, Muraleedharan KC, Shinde VH, Manchanda RK. What is a homoeopathic symptom, in daily practice and research?. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2017; 11: 11-20