Individualized homeopathic medicines for managing pain in cervical radiculopathy in adults: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) results from compression of the cervical nerve roots of the spinal column, resulting in pain, sensory and motor deficits, and diminished reflexes. Objective: To differentiate individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) from identical-looking placebos in the pain management of CR. Methods: This 2-month, double-blind, randomized (2:1; verum: 78, control: 39), placebo-controlled trial was carried out on 117 adults with CR. Concomitant care advice (hot fomentations, spinal extensor exercises, and ergonomic adjustments) was administered mutually. The primary outcome was the 0–10 pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); the secondary outcomes were the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI), all measured monthly, up to 2 months. Group differences were examined on the intention-to-treat sample. Results: Group differences achieved no significance or near significance; pain NRS ( F 1,115 = 1.164, P = 0.086), SF-MPQ total score ( F 1,115 = 0.467, P = 0.046), and NDI total score ( F 1,115 = 1.331, P = 0.211). Natrium muriaticum ( n = 17) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. While statistically pooling the results of 2 randomized controlled trials of IHMs in neck pain involving 257 participants using a random effect model using mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), compared to the control group, IHMs demonstrated significant improvement: MD −0.57, 95% CI −1.12 to −0.03, P = 0.04. No heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%), indicated consistency between studies in the magnitude of treatment effects. Conclusion: The trial could not generate any conclusive evidence that the therapy was effective beyond placebos. Trial registration: CTRI/2023/03/050202; UTN: U1111-1288-7475.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".