Research: HOCHSTRASSER and MATTM

Listed in Issue 43

Abstract

HOCHSTRASSER and MATTMANN, (No affiliation provided) investigated 2 fundamental questions, the first regarding the usefulness and adequacy of the questionnaires and case report forms available in mainstream clinical research when attempting to evaluate 2 dissimilar therapeutic systems such as mainstream medicine and homoeopathy. The second question concerned the comparability of the 2 populations of patients in terms of individual personality characteristics, as well as regarding the progress of the pregnancies and the course of the deliveries under the 2 systems of care and control.

Background

Methodology

Results

A study of this kind is feasible in principle, but is very demanding and time consuming. In addition the study clearly showed that the instruments presently available in mainstream medicine do not cover essential aspects of homoeopathy and therefore, impede a comparison of the 2 therapeutic systems. In the homoeopathic group, the frequency of situations requiring a Caesarean was remarkably low; however, the number of cases was too small to draw qualifying conclusions.

Conclusion

References

Hochstrasser B and Mattmann P. Mainstream medicine versus complementary medicine (homeopathic) intervention: a critical methodology study of care in pregnancy. Forschende Komplementarmedizin 6(1): 20-2 Feb 1999. 

Munro Hall Clinic 2019

IJCA 2018 New Skyscraper

Scientific and Medical Network 2

Cycle India 2020

Walk on the Wide Side Trek Kenya 2020

Big Heart Bike Ride South Africa 2020

top of the page