Background. There is an increasing need for a worldwide professional integration of conventional medicine and traditional/complementary whole medical systems (WMSs). However, the integration is perceived by conventional medicine as problematic or unacceptable, because of a supposed lack of evidence for specific effects of WMSs therapies and supposed prescientific or unscientific paradigms of WMSs. Objectives. To review the literature on the features of WMSs, similarities and differences between conventional medicine and WMSs, and scientific and clinical practice issues that should be dealt with in order to promote the integration process. Methods. A critical, narrative review of the literature on six WMSs. Results and Conclusions. Key factors for the integration of WMSs and conventional medicine are as follows: legal frameworks, quality standards, high‐quality research on safety and efficacy of WMS interventions, infrastructure, and financial resources. For scientific assessment of WMSs, there are unresolved ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues and issues of diagnostics, therapy delivery, and outcome assessment in clinical practice. Future research not only should be directed at quality assurance and generating the necessary data on safety and efficacy/effectiveness but also should address more fundamental (ontological, epistemological, and methodological) issues, in order to overcome the differences between WMSs and conventional medicine.

Background and objective: Since 1997, several meta-analyses (MAs) of placebo-controlled randomised efficacy trials of homoeopathy for any indication (PRETHAIs) have been published with different methods, results and conclusions. To date, a formal assessment of these MAs has not been performed. The main objective of this systematic review of MAs of PRETHAIs was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment. Methods: The inclusion criteria were as follows: MAs of PRETHAIs in humans; all ages, countries, settings, publication languages; and MAs published from 1 Jan. 1990 to 30 Apr. 2023. The exclusion criteria were as follows: systematic reviews without MAs; MAs restricted to age or gender groups, specific indications, or specific homoeopathic treatments; and MAs that did not assess efficacy. We searched 8 electronic databases up to 14 Dec. 2020, with an update search in 6 databases up to 30 April 2023. The primary outcome was the effect estimate for all included trials in each MA and after restricting the sample to trials with high methodological quality, according to predefined criteria. The risk of bias for each MA was assessed by the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE framework. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the proportion of MAs showing a significant positive effect of homoeopathy vs. no significant difference. Results: Six MAs were included, covering individualised homoeopathy (I-HOM, n = 2), nonindividualised homoeopathy (NI-HOM, n = 1) and all homoeopathy types (ALL-HOM = I-HOM + NI-HOM, n = 3). The MAs comprised between 16 and 110 trials, and the included trials were published from 1943–2014. The median trial sample size ranged from 45 to 97 patients. The risk of bias (low/unclear/high) was rated as low for three MAs and high for three MAs. Effect estimates for all trials in each MA showed a significant positive effect of homoeopathy compared to placebo (5 of 5 MAs, no data in 1 MA). Sensitivity analyses with sample restriction to high-quality trials were available from 4 MAs; the effect remained significant in 3 of the MAs (2 MAs assessed ALL-HOM, 1 MA assessed I-HOM) and was no longer significant in 1 MA (which assessed NI-HOM). Discussion: The quality of evidence for positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo (high/moderate/low/very low) was high for I-HOM and moderate for ALL-HOM and NI-HOM. There was no support for the alternative hypothesis of no outcome difference between homoeopathy and placebo. The available MAs of PRETHAIs reveal significant positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo. This is in accordance with laboratory experiments showing partially replicable effects of homoeopathically potentised preparations in physico-chemical, in vitro, plant-based and animal-based test systems. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020209661. The protocol for this SR was finalised and submitted on 25 Nov. 2020 and registered on 26 Dec. 2020.

Objective: Rhythmical massage therapy is used in 24 countries but has not yet been studied in outpatient settings. The objective was to study clinical outcomes in patients receiving rhythmical massage therapy for chronic diseases. Design: Prospective 4-year cohort study. Setting: Thirty-six (36) medical practices in Germany. Participants: Eighty-five (85) outpatients referred to rhythmical massage therapy. Outcome measures: Disease and Symptom Scores (physicians' and patients' assessment, respectively, 0–10) and SF-36. Disease Score was measured after 6 and 12 months, and other outcomes after 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 months. Results: Most common indications were musculoskeletal diseases (45% of patients; primarily back and neck pain) and mental disorders (18%, primarily depression and fatigue). Median disease duration at baseline was 2.0 years (interquartile range 0.5–6.0). Median number of rhythmical massage therapy sessions was 12 (interquartile range 9–12), and median therapy duration was 84 (49–119) days. All outcomes improved significantly between baseline and all subsequent follow-ups. From baseline to 12 months, Disease Score improved from (mean ± standard deviation) 6.30 ± 2.01 to 2.77 ± 1.97 (p < 0.001), Symptom Score improved from 5.76 ± 1.81 to 3.13 ± 2.20 (p < 0.001), SF-36 Physical Component score improved from 39.55 ± 9.91 to 45.17 ± 9.88 (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Mental Component score improved from 39.27 ± 13.61 to 43.78 ± 12.32 (p = 0.028). All these improvements were maintained until the last follow-up. Adverse reactions to rhythmical massage therapy occurred in 4 (5%) patients; 2 patients stopped therapy because of adverse reactions. Conclusions: Patients receiving rhythmical massage therapy had long-term reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of quality of life.

Depressive disorders are common, cause considerable disability, and do not always respond to standard therapy (psychotherapy, antidepressants). Anthroposophic treatment for depression differs from ordinary treatment in the use of artistic and physical therapies and special medication. We studied clinical outcomes of anthroposophic therapy for depression. 97 outpatients from 42 medical practices in Germany participated in a prospective cohort study. Patients were aged 20–69 years and were referred to anthroposophic therapies (art, eurythmy movement exercises, or rhythmical massage) or started physician-provided anthroposophic therapy (counselling, medication) for depression: depressed mood, at least two of six further depressive symptoms, minimum duration six months, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, German version (CES-D, range 0–60 points) of at least 24 points. Outcomes were CES-D (primary outcome) and SF-36 after 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 months. Data were collected from July 1998 to March 2005. Median number of art/eurythmy/massage sessions was 14 (interquartile range 12–22), median therapy duration was 137 (91–212) days. All outcomes improved significantly between baseline and all subsequent follow-ups. Improvements from baseline to 12 months were: CES-D from mean (standard deviation) 34.77 (8.21) to 19.55 (13.12) (p < 0.001), SF-36 Mental Component Summary from 26.11 (7.98) to 39.15 (12.08) (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary from 43.78 (9.46) to 48.79 (9.00) (p < 0.001). All these improvements were maintained until last follow-up. At 12-month follow-up and later, 52%–56% of evaluable patients (35%–42% of all patients) were improved by at least 50% of baseline CES-D scores. CES-D improved similarly in patients not using antidepressants or psychotherapy during the first six study months (55% of patients). In outpatients with chronic depression, anthroposophic therapies were followed by long-term clinical improvement. Although the pre-post design of the present study does not allow for conclusions about comparative effectiveness, study findings suggest that the anthroposophic approach, with its recourse to non-verbal and artistic exercising therapies can be useful for patients motivated for such therapies.

Background: Anthroposophic therapies (counselling, special medication, art, eurythmy movement, and rhythmical massage) aim to stimulate long-term self-healing processes, which theoretically could lead to a reduction of healthcare use. In a prospective two-year cohort study, anthroposophic therapies were followed by a reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of quality of life. The purpose of this analysis was to describe health costs in users of anthroposophic therapies. Methods: 717 consecutive outpatients from 134 medical practices in Germany, starting anthroposophic therapies for chronic diseases, participated in a prospective cohort study. We analysed direct health costs (anthroposophic therapies, physician and dentist consultations, psychotherapy, medication, physiotherapy, ergotherapy, hospital treatment, rehabilitation) and indirect costs (sick leave compensation) in the pre-study year and the first two study years. Costs were calculated from resource utilisation, documented by patient self-reporting. Data were collected from January 1999 to April 2003. Results: Total health costs in the first study year (bootstrap mean 3,297 Euro; 95% confidence interval 95%-CI 3,157 Euro to 3,923 Euro) did not differ significantly from the pre-study year (3,186 Euro; 95%-CI 3,037 Euro to 3,711 Euro), whereas in the second year, costs (2,771 Euro; 95%-CI 2,647 Euro to 3,256 Euro) were significantly reduced by 416 Euro (95%-CI 264 Euro to 960 Euro) compared to the pre-study year. In each period hospitalisation and sick-leave together amounted to more than half of the total health costs. Anthroposophic therapies and medication amounted to 3%, 15%, and 8% of total health costs in the pre-study year, first year, and second study year, respectively. The cost reduction in the second year was largely accounted for by a decrease of inpatient hospitalisation, leading to a hospital cost reduction of 519 Euro (95%-CI 377 Euro to 904 Euro) compared to the pre-study year. Conclusion: In patients starting anthroposophic therapies for chronic disease, total health costs did not increase in the first year, and were reduced in the second year. This reduction was largely explained by a decrease of inpatient hospitalisation. Within the limits of a pre-post design, study findings suggest that anthroposophic therapies are not associated with a relevant increase in total health costs.