Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients: a prospective observational study of two independent cohorts
Published: 2011 · Modality: Homeopathy · Participants: 639 enrolled: 259 homeopathy cohort, 380 conventional cohort (179 and 261 analysed at 3 months; 140 and 191 at 12 months)
Study summary
A prospective observational study by Rostock M., Naumann J. and colleagues at the University Hospital Freiburg with clinics in Germany and Switzerland, published in BMC Cancer. Between October 2004 and April 2007 it enrolled 639 cancer patients in two cohorts: 259 who chose classical homeopathy alongside their conventional care, and 380 under conventional care only. Quality of life (FACT-G and FACIT-Sp), fatigue (MFI) and anxiety and depression (HADS) were measured at entry, three months and twelve months. There was no placebo group. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis in both cohorts (32% and 37%).
What is commonly claimed
Massive patient cohorts show no improvement in quality of life with homeopathic intervention in German oncology centers.
What the study actually found
Homeopathy cohort: FACT-G quality of life rose from 75.6 at entry to 81.1 at three months and 84.1 at twelve months (effect size d = 0.57); spiritual wellbeing (FACIT-Sp) rose from 32.1 to 35.2 (d = 0.37); physical and mental fatigue improved; anxiety and depression did not change. Conventional cohort: FACT-G stayed close to flat, 75.3 to 76.6 at three months and 78.9 at twelve (d = 0.20); FACIT-Sp 31.0 to 31.6 (d = 0.06); no relevant change in fatigue, anxiety or depression. The authors conclude that under homeopathic care the quality-of-life gains were clinically relevant and statistically significant. Two cautions from the paper itself: the cohorts differed a great deal (64% of the conventional cohort had chemotherapy in the first three months against 21% of the homeopathy cohort, and a quarter of the homeopathy cohort had no conventional treatment at all), and of 120 and 206 eligible patients only 11 matched pairs could be formed, which the authors say is not enough for a reliable comparison between the groups.
Key findings
- Observed improvement in overall Quality of Life (QoL).
- Robust data from 639 patients across diverse oncology centers.
- Evidence for broad-spectrum integrative success.