Anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric conditions, often impairing daily functioning, social interactions, and overall quality of life. Conventional pharmacotherapy can be associated with side effects, prompting interest in alternative treatments such as homeopathy. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of individualized homeopathic remedies in reducing anxiety symptoms compared to placebo.
Eighty participants diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) according to DSM-5 criteria were randomized into Homeopathy Group (HG, n=40) and Placebo Group (PG, n=40). Interventions lasted 8 weeks. Outcomes were measured using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores.
Post-intervention, the HG showed significant reductions in HAM-A scores (mean reduction: 12.5 ± 3.1 vs. 6.2 ± 2.7, p<0.001) and GAD-7 scores (HG: 10 ± 3 vs. PG: 4 ± 2, p<0.01).
The authors concluded that these findings suggest individualized homeopathic treatment may effectively reduce anxiety symptoms and improve QoL, offering a complementary approach for managing mild-to-moderate anxiety disorders.
This paper lacks almost everything that is required to assess its alleged findings. In fact, I don’t remember ever seeing a clinical trial reported in such an insufficient way. It has a single author, Dr. Rajeshwar Pratap Singh Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, which is mmost unusual for a study of this nature that requires plenty of cooperation from others.
The article was published in volume 1 of issue 1 of the “European Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine” which claims to be “an internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the understanding, research, and practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The journal provides a platform for clinicians, researchers, educators, and practitioners to share innovative approaches, evidence-based studies, and critical analyses in the field of CAM.”
The European Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is about as scientifically rigorous as the author of the above article is cagey about essential details of his study. One thing, however, seems quite clear to me: nobody can advance CAM by publishing papers that have all the hallmarks of being fraudulent!
10 Responses to A Study of Homeopathy for Reducing Anxiety Symptoms … just increased my anxiety significantly
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
More dodgy homeopathy research coming out of India? Who’d have thought it, eh?
I agree. It basically claims that ‘homeopathy works’, supported by just two rows of data that can’t be verified in any way.
In fact, the whole ‘study’ fills only 2 pages, and is then fluffed up with 4 pages of references, none of which are referred to in the text, and most of which (i.e. the last 3 pages) make no sense whatsoever anyway in the context.
And this study in the field of psychology or psychiatry is produced by someone working in a Department of Environmental Sciences?
I almost suspect that this is meant as a joke, or a challenge to see what level of total crap SCAM journals are willing to accept as ‘scientific research’. Let’s just say that my opinions on this subject are once again confirmed.
Still, I’m pretty certain that our resident homeopathy apologists will not criticize even this piece of rubbish.
Hi, I’m a resident Homoeopathy apologist and even I think the study is appalling. I must say though that there are many studies on Homoeopathy published in mainstream medical journals albeit not as bad as this one.
@Mutus Bellator
Well, that is a first … But good to hear that we can at least agree on this case.
Um, no, not really. I’m working on an article about the state of clinical research in homeopathy, and in the past 6 years, only 3 RCT’s were published in non-SCAM journals – one of which is the infamous Frass lung cancer study in The Oncologist that is about to be retracted.
You need to go further back than 6 years. Why do you think non-SCAM Journals publish positive studies on Homoeopathy? Are they really that sloppy in their reviewing of these studies and what does that say about the rest of the conventional medical studies that are published? It’s just retraction after retraction. You might find the website Retraction Watch to be interesting reading.
@Mutus Bellator
Well, yes, and the reason for this may surprise you: prior to1999, there were virtually no RCT’s published in SCAM journals (I could find only one).
But even then, the numbers are far from impressive, with an average of just 2 RCT’s per year published in regular journals. Peak years were 1997 and 1998, with 5 regular publications each (4 of which came up negative, BTW).
Anyway, these numbers are utterly pathetic for something that claims to be a system of medicine.
Just for comparison: PubMed lists almost 3,000 RCT’s on albuterol alone (one particular asthma medicine). That is already 10 times the amount of RCT’s for all of homeopathy.
Yes, I think that peer review leaves quite a bit to be desired still. One problem is that reviewers are typically unpaid volunteers, and to make things worse, their area of expertise does not always match an article’s subject matter.
As you yourself already remark:
This is indeed a sign that quite a bit of sub-par research gets published. And I think that these retractions are just the tip of the iceberg. Once peer-reviewed and published, most studies are accepted into the body of literature without a second glance. Only when experts really dive into a study, or worse, when (expensive) application and/or replication attempts fail, do the bad ones come to light.
Most worrying is that the number of bad papers appears to be growing fast, and that these are not the result of honest errors or overworked reviewers, but originate from paper mills and other bad faith actors who make money off scientists desperate to publish – or else perish – even if this means that the body of scientific literature gets poisoned.
And this latest Indian paper is probably one in this latter category, even if it isn’t published in a scientifically reputable (regular) journal.
One additional remark: those retractions are still a positive sign that science at least attempts to be self-cleaning. And to the best of my knowledge, retractions are always the result of actions by regular scientists. I can’t think of a single instance where a homeopath or homeopathy researcher submitted e.g. an expression of concern, resulting in a retraction, even though there are many atrociously bad homeopathy studies.
And how much has come out of India?
@Lenny
Almost all recent (< 5y) homeopathy studies originate from India, and the majority of those list the same 3 authors.
I think it's safe to say that homeopathy research is all but dead, with the only exception being a largely nationalistic-political driven 'research' effort from India's ministry of
quackeryAYUSH.I both have an environmental science degree and am a qualified mental health nurse: I know which hat I would be wearing to assess a paper of this sort.