Skip navigation




Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://aohindia.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/1416
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSaha, Subhranil-
dc.contributor.authorKoley, Munmun-
dc.contributor.authorHossain, Seikh Intaj-
dc.contributor.authorMundle, Malay-
dc.contributor.authorGhosh, Shubhamoy-
dc.contributor.authorNag, Goutam-
dc.contributor.authorDatta, Achintya Kumar-
dc.contributor.authorRath, Prasanta-
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-04T06:26:29Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-04T06:26:29Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationIndian Journal of Research In Homoeopathy Vol.7 (2)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://aohindia.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1416-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular disorder posing a major public health challenge to the population. Homoeopathy, although widely used in hypertension, is assumed to have nothing but placebo effects and its specific clinical effects are frequently ascribed as implausible. Aims: To evaluate whether individualized homoeopathy can produce any significant effect different from placebo in essential hypertension by comparing the lowering of blood pressure between groups. Settings and Design: A prospective, double‑blind, randomized, placebo‑controlled, parallel‑arm clinical trial was conducted at the Outpatient Clinic of the Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathy Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal. Material and Methods: Out of 233 hypertensives assessed for eligibility, 150 were enrolled and randomized (verum/homoeopathy 70, control/placebo 80). A total of 18 dropped out and 132 were regular (verum 64, control 68). The outcome measures were assessed after three months and six months. Statistical Analysis: The intention‑to‑treat population was subjected to statistical analysis. Group differences were tested using the χ2 test and independent t test. Repeated measure (ANOVA) was performed to compare the data of two groups obtained longitudinally at baseline, three months and six months. Results: The baseline data were not significantly different between the groups. After six months, mean Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) reduction was 26.6 mm Hg (95% CI 21.5, 31.7) in the homoeopathy group and SBP increased by 3.6 mm Hg (95% CI ‑8.7, 1.5) in the placebo group. Similarly, the mean Diastolic Blood Pressure (SBP) in the homoeopathy group reduced by 11.8 mm Hg (95% CI 9.2, 14.4) and increased by 1.6 mm Hg (95% CI ‑3.6, 0.4) in the placebo group. Repeated measures ANOVA also showed significant difference (P=0.0001) between the groups. Natrum muriaticum, Calcarea carbonica, Sulphur, Thuja occidentalis, Nitric acid and Medorrhinum were frequently prescribed. Conclusion: Individualized homoeopathy produced a significantly different hypotensive effect than placebo.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCCRHen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEssential hypertensionen_US
dc.subjectPlaceboen_US
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialen_US
dc.subjectSystolic and diastolic blood pressureen_US
dc.titleIndividualized homoeopathy versus placebo in essential hypertension: A double‑blind randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Original Article 3.pdf708.76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record


Items in Archive are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.