The role of a homoeopathic preparation compared with conventional therapy in the treatment of injuries: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the use, effectiveness and safety of a homoeopathic preparation (Traumeel) compared with conventional therapies in the treatment of trauma and injuries. METHODS: Multi-centre, prospective, comparative observational cohort study of patients with various musculoskeletal injuries. German physicians who were using homoeopathy in addition to conventional medicine included patients. Patients treated with Traumeel were compared with patients managed conventionally. The primary outcome measure was the rate of resolution of the principal symptoms (i.e. pain and inflammatory symptoms) at the end of therapy. RESULTS: Sixty-nine Traumeel treated and 64 conventionally treated patients fitted the selection criteria. The most common diagnoses were acute injuries (sprains, strains, contusions, etc.) of the ankles, knees and hands. There were no significant differences between demographic and anamnestic baseline characteristics of both groups. Complete resolution of the principal symptom at the end of therapy occurred in 41 (59.4%) patients in the homoeopathy group versus 37 (57.8%) patients in the conventional group. No adverse events were reported in the Traumeel group compared to six adverse events (6.3%) in the conventional group. Physician-assessed tolerability was significantly better in the Traumeel group (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Traumeel is as effective as conventional medicines in the management of mild to moderate injuries in this population. Traumeel was safe in use and judged by physicians to be better tolerated than conventional medicines. This study contributes to the case for a broad clinical effectiveness of Traumeel in the treatment of acute injuries and trauma.

Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared with usual treatments: a meta-analysis of clinical trials.

The increasing interest in alternative medical practices has led to a number of controlled studies on herbal and homeopathic agents. This paper presents the results of a meta-analysis of four recent clinical trials evaluating the homeopathic preparation Vertigoheel (VH) compared with usual therapies (betahistine, Ginkgo biloba extract, dimenhydrinate) for vertigo in a total of 1388 patients. Two trials were observational studies and the other two were randomised double-blind controlled trials. The duration of treatment (6-8 weeks) and dosage were comparable in all studies. Treatments were evaluated for the variables "number of vertigo episodes", "intensity of episodes" and "duration of episodes". As the studies differed in the age of patients and in the baseline values of vertigo, the individual reductions of number, intensity and duration of episodes were adjusted on equal age and baseline values (total means). An analysis of variance (with studies as random effects) showed no relevant influence of studies on the adjusted reductions and no relevant interaction between studies and treatment effects. The meta-analysis of all four trials showed equivalent reductions with VH and with control treatment: mean reduction of the number of daily episodes 4.0 for VH and 3.9 for control (standard error 0.11 for both groups); mean reduction of the duration (on a scale 0-4) for VH 1.1 and for the control 1.0 (standard error 0.03 for both groups); mean reduction of the intensity (on a scale 0-4) for VH 1.18 and for the control 1.8 (standard error 0.03 for both groups). In the non-inferiority analysis from all trials, VH was non-inferior in all variables. The results show the applicability of meta-analyses on the data from studies with homeopathicdrugs and support the results from the individual studies indicating good efficacy and tolerability of VH in patients with vertigo.