Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Forsch Komplemetärmed 1996;3:230–234

A Meta-Analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca

Wiesenauer M.a · Lüdtke R.b

Author affiliations

aMedizinische Fakultät, Universität Göttingen bInstitut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Universität Tübingen

Corresponding Author

Dr. med. Markus Wiesenauer, Lehrbeauftragter für Allgemeinmedizin der Universität Göttingen, In der Geiss 8, D-71384 Weinstadt (Deutschland)

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Objective: 1) To assess the efficacy of homeopathically prepared Galphimia glauca compared with placebo in the treatment of pollinosis; 2) to estimate the corresponding overall success rate of Galphimia glauca. Design: Meta-analysis of clinical trials. Study Selection: Seven randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials and 4 non-placebo-controlled trials (1 randomized and controlled, 1 prospective and uncontrolled) performed by our study group between 1980 and 1989. An additonal MEDLINE search revealed no further trials on this topic. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical over all trials. In total, 1,038 ambulatory patients who suffered from acute pollinosis (752 in placebo-controlled trials) entered the analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Relative frequency and relative change for showing noticeable and soothing relief in ocular symptoms as assessed by the patient. Results: The overall rate of improved eye symptoms is about 1.25 [confidence interval (CI): 1.09–1.43] times higher in the verum group than in the placebo group. Verum success rate is estimated by 79.3% (CI: 74.1–85.0%). Across the single studies the results were highly comparable except for the study run in 1985. Conclusions: A significant superiority of Galphimia glauca over placebo is demonstrated. Estimates of verum success rates are comparable with those of conventional antihistaminics, but no side effects occurred. The results may be slightly biased since not all of the single studies were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis.

© 1996 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Meta-Analyse – Meta-Analysis

Published online: March 24, 2009

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 2504-2092 (Print)
eISSN: 2504-2106 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/CMR

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.