Counting Polar Symptoms: How to Represent Results?

BACKGROUND: Polar symptoms (PS)-symptoms with opposite values-are frequently used in homeopathy, but have many misleading entries in the repertory. This is caused by using absolute occurrence of symptoms, causing the same medicine to appear in both (opposite) symptom rubrics, and by lack of comparison with other medicines. Some PS, like 'aversion/desire for sweets' have a frequency distribution that is not evenly distributed around the neutral value: a desire for sweets is much more common than aversion. A desire for sweets is an indication for a specific medicine only if this desire occurs more frequently in this specific medicine population than in the remainder of the population. We need to find the best way to represent this difference. METHODS: A multi-centre, explorative, prospective, observational study was conducted by nine centres of the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy. Two-hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with chronic cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and received usual homeopathic care. During intake, 30 general PS, 27 polar cough symptoms and 3 non-polar cough symptoms were checked. Different ways of representing results were explored, including two quantities borrowed from mechanics: Centre of Mass (CoM) and Leverage. RESULTS: At the fourth follow-up, three medicines with more than 10 cases with good results were identified: 20 Phosphorus, 19 Pulsatilla and 13 Sulphur. The mean value of the frequency distribution of some symptoms in the whole sample was considerably different from the neutral value. Comparing a medicine population with the remainder of the respective population can give results that differ from polarity analysis. For some symptoms, the 'distance' (Leverage) between the CoMs of the medicine population and the remainder of the population was clearer than the likelihood ratio (LR). CONCLUSION: If the LR value is not clear about the prognostic value in PS, notions from mechanics such as CoM and Leverage can clarify how to interpret a polar symptom.

Evaluation of the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Assessing Causal Attribution of Clinical Outcome to Homeopathic Intervention as Presented in Case Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish the reliability and content validity of the "Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy-Causal Attribution Inventory" as a tool for attributing a causal relationship between the homeopathic intervention and outcome in clinical case reports. METHODS: Purposive sampling was adopted for the selection of information-rich case reports using pre-defined criteria. Eligible case reports had to fulfil a minimum of nine items of the CARE Clinical Case Reporting Guideline checklist and a minimum of three of the homeopathic HOM-CASE CARE extension items. The Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy Inventory consists of 10 domains. Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of these domains was determined by calculating the percentage agreement and kappa (κ) values. A κ greater than 0.4, indicating fair agreement between raters, in conjunction with the absence of concerns regarding the face validity, was taken to indicate the validity of a given domain. Each domain was assessed by four raters for the selected case reports. RESULTS: Sixty case reports met the inclusion criteria. Inter-rater agreement/concordance per domain was "perfect" for domains 1 (100%, κ = 1.00) and 2 (100%, κ = 1.00); "almost perfect" for domain 8 (97.5%, κ = 0.86); "substantial" for domains 3 (96.7%, κ = 0.80) and 5 (91.1%, κ = 0.70); "moderate" for domains 4 (83.3%, κ = 0.60), 7 (67.8%, κ = 0.46) and 9 (99.2%, κ = 0.50); and "fair" for domain 10 (56.1%, κ = 0.38). For domains 6A (46.7%, κ = 0.03) and 6B (50.3%, κ = 0.18), there was "slight agreement" only. Thus, the validity of the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy tool was established for each of its domains, except for the two that pertain to direction of cure (domains 6A and 6B). CONCLUSION: The MO: dified NAR: anjo C: riteria for H: omeopathy-Causal Attribution Inventory was identified as a valid tool for assessing the likelihood of a causal relationship between a homeopathic intervention and clinical outcome. Improved wordings for several criteria have been proposed for the assessment tool, under the new acronym "MONARCH". Further assessment of two MONARCH domains is required.