| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2015 | Volume
: 9
| Issue : 4 | Page : 249-257 |
|
|
Mygale lasiodora: A multicentric observational homoeopathic clinical verification study
Raj K Manchanda1, PS Chakraborty2, Pramodji Singh3, SS Nayan3, Ojit Singh4, PK Pradhan5, DK Singh6, Subhranil Saha2, Munmun Koley2, Chaturbhuja Nayak1
1 Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, India
2 Dr. Anjali Chatterjee Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy (Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy), Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Central Research Institute (Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy), Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Regional Research Institute (Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy), Imphal, Manipur, India
5 Regional Research Institute (Homoeopathy) (Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy), Puri, Odisha, India
6 Clinical Verification Unit (Homoeopathy) (Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy), Patna, Bihar, India
Correspondence Address:
P S Chakraborty
Dr. Anjali Chatterjee Regional Research Institute (Homoeopathy), Kolkata, West Bengal
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0974-7168.172869
|
|
|
Context: Clinical verification is an ongoing research program of the Council that verified many rare homoeopathic drugs.
Aims: To clinically verify the symptomatology of Mygale lasiodora by ascertaining the symptoms improved during verification.
Settings and Design: In this multicenter observational study, 166 patients were enrolled after matching with the available drug symptomatology and specified eligibility criteria. The medicine was prescribed in 6C, 30C, 200C, and 1M potencies, as per homoeopathic principles.
Statistical Analysis Used: Data were presented in terms of descriptive statistics.
Results: One sixty-six cases were analyzed; male/female: 105/61; mean age 29.13 years. There were “clinical successes” in 104 cases and failures in 62, judged subjectively by the physicians. A minimum of two prescriptions was considered for pick-listing each symptom as a rule of thumb. The number of symptoms verified was as follows: proving symptoms (n = 18), symptoms from other literature (n = 16), and new observations (n = 47). The data were presented as mean, standard deviations, N (%), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Conclusions: Total 34 available symptoms were verified, and 47 new symptoms were identified. Cautious interpretation is necessary. Further replication on larger sample and estimation of likelihood ratio, in general, practice settings in prospective Bayesian approach is necessary before inclusion of the symptoms in homoeopathic literature. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
