References to all included RCTs are available on-line at.

Background A novel pandemic disease offered the opportunity to create new, disease-specific, symptom rubrics for the homeopathic repertory. Objective The aim of this study was to discover the relationship between specific symptoms and specific medicines, especially of symptoms occurring frequently in this disease. Materials and Methods Worldwide collection of data in all possible formats by various parties was coordinated by the Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis. As the data came in, more symptoms were assessed prospectively. Frequent analysis and feedback by electronic newsletters were used to improve the quality of the data. Likelihood ratios (LRs) of symptoms were calculated. An algorithm for combining symptom LRs was programmed and published in the form of an app. The app was tested against 18 well-described successful cases from Hong Kong. Results LRs of common symptoms such as ‘Fatigue’ and ‘Headache’ provided better differentiation between medicines than did existing repertory entries, which are based only on the narrow presence or absence of symptoms. A mini-repertory for COVID-19 symptoms was published and supported by a web-based algorithm. With a choice of 20 common symptoms, this algorithm produced the same outcome as a full homeopathic analysis based upon a larger number of symptoms, including some that are traditionally considered more specific to particular medicines. Conclusion A repertory based on clinical data and LRs can differentiate between homeopathic medicines using a limited number of frequently occurring epidemic symptoms. A Bayesian computer algorithm to combine symptoms can complement a full homeopathic analysis of cases.

A retrospective evaluation of the results of the homoeopathic treatment of 62 patients suffering from bronchial asthma showed a very significant statistical improvement in the condition. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied after a random trawl of cases from our files. The results were evaluated in terms of the general population and according to age at start of treatment, to take account of the high incidence of spontaneous remission in children. The clinical approach of the homoeopath is discussed, with reference to the prescribing of medicines.

This study suggests that in a general medical practice setting, homeopathic treatment could be regarded as an effective choice for patients with AD.

Lycopodium's main symptoms are well known by homeopaths, but their knowledge correlates well with the symptoms' prevalence and not with their LR. Retrospective assessment of prevalence and LR of symptoms in good responders might be a means for better selection of symptoms for prospective studies.

The results show that there is no contradiction between homeopathy and primary prevention by means of vaccination.

A proving is a suggestion for a remedy and the most successful filters towards its verification are applied by examining the totality of the symptoms and by confirming and adding in clinical practice. Eliminating the majority of symptoms or characteristic single symptoms due to over scientific vigour or a concern about statistical significance or background noise, risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is important to remember the proof of provings is first and foremost their clinical usability and efficiency.Though there is much we can learn from modern research methodology, we believe that it should not be a foregone conclusion that HPT methodology should equal RCT methodology, as the authors assume. Not only are RCTs often problematic in themselves, but the very different philosophy and practice of homoeopathy require a distinctive approach. It is our experience that while modern HPTs have gained much quality by upgrading their methodology, restricting them to conventional scientific methodology can rob provings of their unique individuality. References1 Dantas F, et al. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995.

During the past century, the amount of information about homeopathic medicines has grown dramatically. However, the recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has shown that homeopathic practitioners do not use more medicines than a century ago and they seem to use less symptoms to find the proper medicine. This could be explained by the fact that the more than a hundred years old repertory was flawed from the beginning and that more information in the repertory leads the practitioner astray in an increasingly complex labyrinth of data.This can be resolved by applying modern data management techniques based on systematic collection of treatment data and statistical analysis of the data. Homeopathic practitioners should collect these data avoiding bias. This requires additional training of practitioners, which should also result in a higher scientific level of homeopathic practice and increasingly effective treatment as the database grows.