|
Formic acid : A multicentric observational homoeopathic clinical verification trial
Rajkumar Manchanda1, Jaya Gupta1, Parthasarathi Chakraborty2, Pramodji Singh3, Surendra Singh Nayan3, JP Singh4, PK Pradhan5, Sunil Ramteke6, KC Das7, Populla Prasad8, Payal Gupta1, Goutam Rakshit1, Chaturbhuja Nayak9
1 Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, India
2 Dr. Anjali Chatterjee Regional Research Institute (Homoeopathy), Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Dr. D. P. Rastogi Central Research Institute (Homoeopathy), Noida, India
4 Homoeopathic Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
5 Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Puri, Odisha, India
6 Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
7 Retired, Dr. Anjali Chatterjee Regional Research Institute (Homoeopathy), Kolkata, West Bengal, India
8 Clinical Research Unit (Homoeopathy), Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India
9 President, Homoeopathy University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Correspondence Address:
Jaya Gupta
Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0974-7168.194320
|
|
Aims: This study was done to clinically verify the symptomatology of Formic acid by ascertaining the symptoms improved during verification and to incorporate new findings (if any) to the known symptomatology of Formic acid. Methods: A multicentric observational clinical verification study was conducted at nine research centers of Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy to verify the proving symptoms of rarely used medicine, Formic acid. Two hundred and seventy participants having symptomatological similarity with Formic acid were included and prescribed in 6C, 30C, 200C, and 1M potencies, as per need of each case. The data were compiled in a specially designed Excel spreadsheet for further analysis. The collected data were presented in terms of descriptive statistics. Prevalence of the symptoms in the responding and nonresponding population was compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Results: Out of 266 followed up patients, 215 cases responded (80.8%) with 95% confidence interval of 0.75-0.85. The number of symptoms verified was as follows: proving symptoms (n = 11) and new observations (n = 22). The widely emerged new general symptoms, i.e., clean tongue, disturbed sleep, loose stool, tastelessness, and profuse sweat may be worth consideration during prescription of Formic acid. Conclusions: The proving symptoms of Formic acid could be verified clinically, but the correlation of patient-specific symptom needs cautious interpretation. Further replication on larger sample and estimation of likelihood ratio in real-time clinical practice are needed. |
