Original Article

Documentation of Prescriptions and Clinical Outcomes in a Homeopathic Hospital Setting in West Bengal, India

Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 2015, Vol. 20(3) 180-185 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2156587214568459 cam.sagepub.com

Subhranil Saha, BHMS, MSc1, Munmun Koley, BHMS, MSc1, Shubhamoy Ghosh, MD (Hom), MSc2, Mohan Giri, MD (Hom)2, Asim Das, MD (Hom)2, and Rachna Goenka, BHMS2

Abstract Documentation of prescriptions and clinical outcomes in routine homeopathic practice is a prerequisite for conducting targeted research in homeopathy. Six homeopathic physicians participated in methodical data collection over a 3-month period in 6 outpatient departments of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. A specifically designed Microsoft Excel spreadsheet enabled recording of consecutive appointments—date, patient identity, medical condition/ complaint, whether chronic/acute, new/follow-up case, patient-assessed outcome (7-point Likert-type scale: 3 to þ3), prescribed homeopathic medication, and whether other medication/s being taken for the condition. Spreadsheets were submitted monthly for data synthesis and analysis. A total of 1972 patients’ follow-up generated data of 2905 appointments, of which 2272 (78.2%) were positive, 183 (6.3%) negative, and 450 (15.5%) showed no change. Strongly positive outcomes (scores of þ2/þ3) were recorded in osteoarthritis, piles, cough, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, chronic suppurative otitis media, and conjunctivitis. This systematic recording short-listed promising areas of future homeopathic research. Keywords systematic data collection, patient-reported outcomes, homeopathy, India Received October 31, 2014. Accepted for publication December 21, 2014.

Clinical research in homeopathy has grown to a substantial extent of 1110 clinical studies, including 356 double-blind randomized controlled trials up to 2014.1 Simultaneously, the necessity for documentation of prescriptions and clinical outcomes in routine homeopathic practice and systematic analysis of relevant data has been highlighted to lay the foundation for conducting targeted research in homeopathy.2 Critical scrutiny of prescriptions to illustrate favorable clinical responses to prescribed medicines is fundamental for carrying out efficacy trials. On account of absence of control, these observations cannot offer evidence of an effect that can be causally attributed to the homeopathic intervention; still, can be considered as valuable evidence-seeking activity by pointing out probable association between treatment and outcome.3 It would be a practical input that could be made toward an evidence base, without undertaking the rigorous demands of experimental studies. These outcomes research progresses beyond mere unstructured observation, and still represents clinical findings in the ‘‘realworld’’ setting of homeopathic medical care. Systematic and targeted large-scale clinical data collection was initiated in multipractitioner homeopathic settings,2 including dentistry,4,5 in the past decade. The investigators also

successfully piloted a similar project on dental homeopathic practice in a homeopathic hospital setting in West Bengal, India and highlighted promising areas of future research.6 Now they intend to engage the homeopathic doctors of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital to collect clinical and outcomes data over a 3-month period in their outpatient settings. The objectives of such an initiative were to gain insight into the complaints that homeopathic doctors treat in the hospital outpatient setting and for follow-up cases, to determine patient assessed change in severity of the treated medical condition/complaint by comparing the last with

1

2

Clinical Research Unit (Homeopathy), Siliguri, Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Government of India Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Howrah, West Bengal, India

Corresponding Author: Subhranil Saha, BHMS, MSc, Clinical Research Unit (Homeopathy), Siliguri, Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Government of India, Gokhel Road, Arabindapally, Siliguri 734006, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

Saha et al

181

Figure 1. Age profile of the follow-up patients visiting the 6 outpatient departments (N ¼ 1972).

the first homeopathic consultation, and thus identifying any specific patterns of disease, clinical responses, and/or homeopathic medicines that may help to target future research in homeopathy.

Materials and Methods The study was of 3 months’ duration; July to September, 2014. The study design was prospective and observational. Six homeopathic doctors willing to contribute to the study were provided with a specially designed spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel).2 The doctors had a practicing experience of 10 to 20 years in hospital outpatient settings. Detailed instructions on using the spreadsheet format, and how to ask patients questions about their clinical outcome, were detailed on separate pages of the file. The spreadsheet allowed recording of consecutive appointments, row by row, under the following column headings: appointment date (day, month), unique (anonymized) patient identity number, age and gender of the patient, the condition/complaint treated, system-based category of condition/complaint, whether the condition/complaint is ‘‘chronic’’ or ‘‘acute,’’ whether, in relation to the previous 12 months, that was a new or a follow-up appointment for the same complaint, patient-assessed change in the treated complaint at the current follow-up compared with the initial homeopathic consultation, using a 7-point scale (‘‘no change’’ or ‘‘unsure’’ ¼ 0; ‘‘mild’’ ¼ +1; ‘‘moderate’’ ¼ +2; ‘‘major’’ ¼ +3), homeopathic medicine/s prescribed, any other medication/s (conventional) being taken for the condition/complaint, and comments, if any. On receipt of the final spreadsheets at the end of the project, the original data were rechecked and scrutinized for obvious missing data and typographical errors. These were flagged up and rectified where possible. A new master copy of the complete appointments page were then created, into which new columns were added to indicate (a) the appointment number per patient per condition/symptom and (b) whether or not an appointment was the final one for a given condition/symptom in a given patient during the 3 months of the study. These procedures enabled analysis based on final appointments, that is, on the number of individual patient conditions treated, irrespective of whether they were treated by the doctor once, twice, or more often. The term individual patient condition was used because a given patient could

present with different conditions on a different, or even the same occasion. Also, if a patient presented at one appointment with more than one condition, each of which was treated separately with homeopathy, the doctor reported each on a different row of the spreadsheet. This approach was adopted because a key purpose of the study was to catalogue the frequency and success rate of treating named conditions, even if a given individual patient exhibits more than one. After the final dispatch of their practice data, doctors were sent a brief questionnaire, designed to gauge their experience of using the spreadsheet and their opinions of the value they attributed to the data it produced. The following principal analyses were then carried out: (a) ‘‘final’’ outcome score by acute/chronic conditions, (b) ‘‘final’’ outcome score by medical category, (c) ‘‘final’’ outcome score by medical conditions/complaints, and (d) enlisting the most frequently used homeopathic medicines in different outpatient settings.

Results The 6 participating doctors submitted data reliably; each sent an updated spreadsheet for every month for 3 consecutive months. The appointments appeared to be recorded meaningfully. The most common difficulty was in cases where a patient presented with 2 discrete medical conditions; however, notably, in all occasions, single remedy was prescribed. Separate rows were used to describe independent medical complaints for the same patient. Missing values were rectified wherever possible before final analysis. The presence of other (conventional) medication/s taken for the condition/complaint (including ‘‘none’’) was noted on just 3.8% of appointments. Some participants made ready use of the column ‘‘comments, if any’’ for additional notes, while others used it sparingly. While reflecting results, we considered only the patients completing at least 2 or more follow-ups. A total of 1972 patients’ follow-ups generated data of 2905 appointments, of which 2272 (78.2%) were positive, 183 (6.3%) negative, and 450 (15.5%) showed no change. Outpatient distribution of the patients were

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

182

Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 20(3)

Figure 2. Gender distribution of the follow-up patients visiting the 6 outpatient departments (N ¼ 1972).

as follows: medicine (n ¼ 566), surgery (n ¼ 587), pediatrics (n ¼ 140), obstetrics and gynecology (n ¼ 166), otorhinolaryngology (n ¼ 326), and ophthalmology (n ¼ 187). Majority of the patients were aged 41 to 60 years (n ¼ 721, 36.6%; Figure 1) and majority were female (n ¼ 1107, 56.1%; Figure 2). Participating doctors treated 328 different medical conditions in total; 5 most frequently treated complaints per outpatient department are presented. Osteoarthritis (55.1%), piles (82.3%), cough (94.4%), anal fissure/fistula (74.3%), and common cold (96.2%) consisted of the chief conditions reported in the medicine outpatient department. The outpatients of surgery department documented principally osteoarthritis (73.3%), minor injury (49.3%), piles (60.3%), low back pain (54.8%), and anal fissure/fistula (74.3%). The pediatric outpatient setting showed cough (78.3%), common cold (84.2%), fever (72.2%), minor injury (18.2%), and bronchial asthma (40.0%). Dysfunctional uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, urinary tract infection, and uterine fibroid were the most frequently reported ailments in obstetrics and gynecology. The otorhinolaryngology outpatient setting accounted for chronic suppurative otitis media, nasal polyp, deafness, tinnitus, and tonsillitisy. Refractory errors, cataract, conjunctivitis, stye, and dacrocystitis were the mostly encountered conditions in the ophthalmology outpatient department (Table 1). Strongly positive outcomes (þ2/þ3) were recorded in 80.2% patients of medicine, 67.1% patients of surgery, 84.3% patients of pediatrics, 47.6% patients of obstetrics and gynecology, 15.0% patients of otorhinolaryngology, and 9.6% patients of ophthalmology settings (Table 2). Strongly positive outcomes (þ2/þ3) were reported in 65.0% to 97.1% follow-ups in patients suffering from categories of musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, dermatological, and ear, nose and throat in the medicine outpatient setting; 50.0% to 94.1% follow-ups in patients suffering from categories of musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory,

Table 1. Outpatient-wise 5 Most Frequently Treated Conditions/ Complaints During 3 Months. Outpatient Department

Condition/Complaint

 Osteoarthritis  Piles  Cough  Anal fissure/fistula  Minor injury Surgery  Osteoarthritis  Minor injury  Piles  Low back pain  Anal fissure/fistula Pediatrics  Cough  Common cold  Fever  Minor injury  Bronchial asthma Obstetrics and  Dysfunctional uterine bleeding Gynecology  Dysmenorrhea  Polycystic ovarian syndrome  Urinary tract infection  Uterine fibroid Otorhinolaryngology  Chronic suppurative otitis media  Nasal polyp  Deafness  Tinnitus  Tonsillitis Ophthalmology  Refractory error  Cataract  Conjunctivitis  Stye  Dacrocystitis Medicine

Total No. of Cases 147 62 54 35 34 247 71 68 62 53 23 19 18 11 5 39 35 30 21 13 43 28 25 25 16 31 16 15 13 9

urogenital, and dermatological in the surgery outpatient setting; 72.7% to 92.3% follow-ups in patients suffering from categories of respiratory, dermatological, gastrointestinal,

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

Saha et al

183

Table 2. Outcome Descriptive Statistics of Follow-up Cases.

Table 3. Summary of Outcome Scores of Follow-ups by Category.

No. of Follow-up Cases Outpatient Department

Outcomes Acute Chronic Overall

Medicine

3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3 3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3 3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3 3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3 3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3 3 to 2 + 1 or 0 þ2 to þ3

Surgery

Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Otorhinolaryngology

Ophthalmology

0 5 62 0 7 17 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 48 7 0 23 2

0 107 392 0 186 377 0 22 88 3 87 79 0 229 42 0 146 16

0 112 454 0 193 394 0 22 118 3 87 79 0 277 49 0 169 18

central nervous system and psychiatry, and endocrinology in the pediatric outpatient department; 46% follow-ups in patients suffering from category of obstetrics and gynecology in the obstetrics and gynecology outpatient department; 8.6% to 31.8% follow-ups in patients suffering from categories of ear, nose, and throat, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and dermatological in the otorhinolaryngology outpatient setting; and 9.7% follow-ups in patients suffering from categories of eye in the ophthalmology outpatient department (Table 3). Among the medical conditions, strongly positive outcomes (þ2/þ3) were reported in 55.1% to 96.2% follow-ups in patients suffering from osteoarthritis, piles, cough, anal fissure/fistula, and common cold in the medicine outpatient department; 49.3% to 73.3% follow-ups in patients suffering from osteoarthritis, minor injury, piles, low back pain, and anal fissure/fistula in the surgery outpatient department; 18.2% to 84.2% follow-ups in patients suffering from cough, common cold, fever, minor injury, and bronchial asthma in the pediatric outpatient setting; 35.3% to 58.6% follow-ups in patients suffering from dysfunctional uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovary, urinary tract infection, and uterine fibroid in the obstetrics and gynecology outpatient setting, 4.0% to 20.9% follow-ups in patients suffering from chronic suppurative otitis media, nasal polyp, deafness, tinnitus, and tonsillitis in the otorhinolaryngology outpatient setting; and 15.0% to 23.5% follow-ups in patients suffering from conjunctivitis, stye, and dacrocystitis in the ophthalmology outpatient department (Table 4). Individualized prescription was the rule in all of the appointments. A total of 282 different homeopathic medicines were reported. ‘‘Polychrest’’ remedies were frequently prescribed. Per outpatient setting, the most frequently used medicines were as follows: medicine, Rhus toxicodendron

Outpatient Department Medicine

Surgery

Pediatrics

No. of Final þ2/þ3 +1/0 2/3 (%) (%) Category Follow-ups (%) MSK GI RESP DERM ENT MSK GI RESP URO DERM RESP DERM GI CNSP ENDO OG

Obstetrics and Gynecology Otorhinolaryngology ENT MSK GI RESP DERM Ophthalmology EYE

214 132 103 48 22 353 152 34 16 14 41 19 13 11 5 189

65.0 80.3 97.1 93.8 90.9 62.9 63.8 94.1 56.3 50.0 87.8 84.2 92.3 72.7 80.0 46.0

35.0 19.7 2.9 6.2 9.1 37.1 36.2 5.9 43.7 50.0 12.2 15.8 7.7 27.3 20.0 52.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

215 38 35 29 22 176

15.3 10.5 8.6 17.2 31.8 9.7

84.7 89.5 91.4 82.8 68.2 90.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Abbreviations: CNSP, central nervous system and psychiatry; DERM, dermatological; ENDO, endocrinology; ENT, ear, nose, and throat; GI, gastrointestinal; MSK, musculoskeletal; OG, obstetrics and gynecology; RESP, respiratory; URO, urogenital.

(10.8%); surgery, Calcarea fluorica (17.0%); pediatrics, Bryonia alba (10.2%); obstetrics and gynecology, Sulphur (6.3%); otorhinolaryngology, Rhus toxicodendron (9.7%); and ophthalmology, Rhus toxicodendron (5.6%). Mother tinctures, decimal, centesimal, and 50 millesimal potencies were prescribed in 7.8%, 12.3%, 58.4%, and 21.5% occasions. Placebos accounted for 18.9% of prescriptions. Several instances of matching between a specific medical condition and a particular homeopathic medicine were found. Some of the following medicine-condition pairings were most noticeable: Rhus toxicodendron and Calcarea fluorica for osteoarthritis (41.3% and 39.6%, respectively), Sulphur in piles (32.0%), Rhus toxicodendron in cough (44.2%) and common cold (32.6%), Arnica montana for injury (69.2%), Sulphur (27.8%) in dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and so on (Table 5). Five of the 6 participating homeopathic doctors used Excel spreadsheet previously. All of them found the spreadsheet, though a bit time-consuming, really practical to use and easy to enter data into that. It seemed to all the doctors that the outcome question sequence was understood by the patients and it was also easy to score the stated outcome on the 7-point scale. Still, everyone thought that this scoring had a positive bias. They found it convenient to return data on a monthly basis through e-mail. All expressed their interest in

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

184

Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 20(3)

Table 4. Summary of þ2/þ3 Outcomes of Final Follow-ups by Medical Condition/Complaint. Outpatient Department

Condition/ Complaint

 Osteoarthritis  Piles  Cough  Anal fissure/fistula  Common cold Surgery  Osteoarthritis  Minor injury  Piles  Low back pain  Anal fissure/fistula Pediatrics  Cough  Common cold  Fever  Minor injury  Bronchial asthma Obstetrics and  Dysfunctional Gynecology uterine bleeding  Dysmenorrhea  Polycystic ovarian syndrome  Urinary tract infection  Uterine fibroid Otorhinolaryngology  Chronic suppurative otitis media  Nasal polyp  Deafness  Tinnitus  Tonsillitis Ophthalmology  Conjunctivitis  Stye  Dacrocystitis Medicine

Table 5. Five Most Frequently Used Homeopathic Medicines per Outpatient Department.

No. of þ2/þ3 Follow-ups Scores (%) 167 62 54 35 26 247 71 68 62 53 23 19 18 11 5 114

55.1 82.3 94.4 74.3 96.2 73.3 49.3 60.3 54.8 62.3 78.3 84.2 72.2 18.2 40.0 36.8

102 87

35.3 58.6

60

55.0

39 43

53.8 20.9

28 25 25 16 34 30 20

17.9 4.0 4.0 12.5 23.5 20.0 15.0

Outpatient Department Medicine

Surgery

Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Otorhinolaryngology

Ophthalmology

taking part in future controlled research. Including ‘‘trustworthy’’ physicians in the work was stressed by one doctor. It was also suggested to conduct larger scale data collection by the doctors working in ‘‘State Homeopathic Dispensaries’’ and ‘‘Homeopathy Specialty Clinics’’ in West Bengal, India.

Discussion and Conclusion This methodical and meaningful documentation of clinical outcome of homeopathic appointments in different outpatient settings identified promising areas of future clinical research. In spite of its inherent limitations, it laid the groundwork for conducting targeted research. Pick-listing the most frequently used medicines and conditions/complaints treated most often and with greatest apparent success identified the areas where initiation of efficacy trials seemed to be reasonably feasible, both by predefining probable medicines, and also by imposing no restrictions on the physicians allowing them to choose from a wide range of remedies. Though individualized prescribing was the norm, it was equally apparent that few

Homeopathic Medicines Rhus toxicodendron Calcarea fluorica Ruta graviolens Sulphur Bryonia alba Calcarea fluorica Rhus toxicodendron Ruta graviolens Arnica montana Bryonia alba Bryonia alba Arnica montana Rhus toxicodendron Pulsatilla nigricans Hepar sulphuris Sulphur Nux vomica Calcarea phosphorica Natrum muriaticum Sepia succus Rhus toxicodendron Arnica montana Natrum sulphuricum Kali sulphuricum Mercurius solubilis Rhus toxicodendron Natrum muriaticum Sulphur Arnica montana Calcarea carbonica

Occasions Prescribed (%) 10.8 9.1 6.0 5.5 4.7 17.0 13.0 9.5 5.2 2.7 10.2 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.3 5.4 5.0 4.1 3.6 9.7 7.4 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.6 3.6 2.4 2.0 1.6

homeopathic medicines tended to be selectively used for specific medical conditions. This study assessed only changes from a recalled baseline— a potential source of bias. The noncontrolled outcome statistics refer only to patients who were reassessed at follow-ups, thus not executing intention-to-treat analysis. Selection bias, interaction bias, and empathy bias may also equally be inflicted on the results. Seasonal variation may have also affected the outcomes. The overall rate of positive outcome in 78.2% of follow-up patients in our study is similar to that reported in other homeopathy outcome studies in primary care.2,7,8 and in hospital settings.9-11 Although the use of 7-point Likert-type scale was previously validated in homeopathy outcome audits, and was expedient to use, it would be still be more acceptable to have validated outcome scales for specific medical conditions. Considerable changes were noted in the prescription pattern of physicians. All the prescriptions were individualized, a finding quite higher than 2 earlier studies,12,13 thus indicating substantial incorporation of corrective measures to curtail rampant prescriptions. The use of centesimal potencies decreased from 74.8% to 58.4%, while that of others increased simultaneously. No prescription of external application was documented during these

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

Saha et al

185

3 months. Most frequently reported medical conditions/complaints also varied to some extent. Use of other conventional medications, though reported sparingly, was mostly over-thecounter drugs, a finding that supported a previous report.14 Finally, this clinical outcome study may act as fundamental in informing well-targeted and controlled future research in homeopathy feasible in the hospital outpatient setting.

2.

3. 4.

Acknowledgments The authors hereby acknowledge Dr Nikhil Saha, Acting Principal of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital for allowing us to carry out the project successfully at his institution. The authors are also grateful to Dr Goutam Nag, Dr Amila Modak, Dr Subrata Saha, Dr Monojit Kundu, Dr Ramkumar Mondal, and Sk Swaif Ali for their sincere cooperation in data collection. The authors are also thankful to the patients for their participation in this study.

Author Contributions SS, MK: concept, design, literature search, data interpretation, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation. SG, MG, AD, RG: clinical study and data acquisition. All the authors edited, reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

10. 11.

Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

12.

Ethical Approval The Institutional Ethics Committee of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital approved the study prior to its initiation.

13.

14.

References 1. The CORE-Hom database: a database on Clinical Outcome REsearch in Homeopathy. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Stiftung

and the Homeopathy Research Institute. http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/core-hom/index.php. Accessed October 28, 2014. Mathie RT, Robinson TW. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in medical practice: a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy. 2006;95:199-205. Mathie RT. Clinical outcomes research: contributions to the evidence base for homeopathy. Homeopathy. 2003;92:56-57. Mathie RT, Farrer S. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in dental practice: a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy. 2007;96:74-81. Farrer S, Baitson ES, Gedah L, Norman C, Darby P, Mathie RT. Homeopathic prescribing for chronic and acute periodontal conditions in 3 dental practices in the UK. Homeopathy. 2013;102: 242-247. Ghosh S, Panja S, Ghosh TN, et al. Dental practice scenario in a government homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. J Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2014;19:200-204. Downey P. Audit of prescribing style and outcomes in general practice. Br Hom J. 1996;85:71-74. Robinson TW. Responses to homeopathic treatment in National Health Service general practice. Homeopathy. 2006;95:9-14. Clover A.Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J. 2000;89(suppl 1):S45. Richardson WR.Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. Br Hom J. 2001;90:158-162. Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11:793-798. Koley M, Saha S, Arya JS, et al. A study on drug utilization and prescription habits of physicians in a government homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. J Integr Med. 2013;11:305-313. Koley M, Saha S, Ghosh S, et al. A validation study of homeopathic prescribing and patient care indicators. J Tradit Complement Med. 2014;4:289-292. Koley M, Saha S, Ghosh A, Ganguly S, Arya JS, Choubey G. Selfmedication tendencies of patients visiting out-patient departments of government homoeopathic medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal, India. Int J High Dilution Res. 2013;12:178-189.

Downloaded from chp.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 8, 2015

Documentation of prescriptions and clinical outcomes in a homeopathic hospital setting in West Bengal, India.

Documentation of prescriptions and clinical outcomes in routine homeopathic practice is a prerequisite for conducting targeted research in homeopathy...
184KB Sizes 0 Downloads 13 Views