DSpace Repository

Individualized homoeopathy versus placebo in essential hypertension: A double‑blind randomized controlled trial

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Saha, Subhranil
dc.contributor.author Koley, Munmun
dc.contributor.author Hossain, Seikh Intaj
dc.contributor.author Mundle, Malay
dc.contributor.author Ghosh, Shubhamoy
dc.contributor.author Nag, Goutam
dc.contributor.author Datta, Achintya Kumar
dc.contributor.author Rath, Prasanta
dc.date.accessioned 2019-04-04T06:26:29Z
dc.date.available 2019-04-04T06:26:29Z
dc.date.issued 2013
dc.identifier.citation Indian Journal of Research In Homoeopathy Vol.7 (2) en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://aohindia.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1416
dc.description.abstract Background: 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.sponsorship CCRH en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.subject Essential hypertension en_US
dc.subject Placebo en_US
dc.subject Randomized controlled trial en_US
dc.subject Systolic and diastolic blood pressure en_US
dc.title Individualized homoeopathy versus placebo in essential hypertension: A double‑blind randomized controlled trial en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account