TABLE 5:
Publications on pigs
| Authors (year) | Species | Indication | Study design | Diagnostic measure | Effect of homeopathy? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day (1984) | Sows | Stillbirth prevention | Observational | M | Yes: number of stillbirths decreased significantly compared to an untreated group |
| Seifert (1987) | Sows | MMA individualised treatment | RCT non-blind | CS/M | Yes: less treatments needed to recover compared to allopathy. Average treatment duration was slightly shorter. Higher litter weight and lower piglet mortality |
| Drösemeier (1989) | Sows | MMA prevention | RCT double-blind | DT/CS/M | No: no difference on MMA infection rate compared to P or AB group |
| Schütte (1991) - trial 1 | Pigs | Respiratory tract diseases prevention | RCT non-blind | CS | Yes: HOM mix over 10 days lessens the sickness rate (18.1 per cent) in comparison to placebo (24,3 per cent), more effective than subtherapeutic AB dose (19.1 per cent) but less than therapeutic AB dose (10,4 to 8,3 per cent) |
| Schütte (1991) - trial 2 | Pigs | Respiratory tract diseases prevention | RCT non-blind | CS | Yes: HOM remedy had a significantly lower infection rate (17,7 per cent) than P (24,3 per cent) within a 5-day treatment double dosed |
| Guajardo-Bernal and others (1996) | Sows | Growth promotion | RCT single-blind | M | No: no difference in birth weight of litters compared to P |
| Albrecht and Schütte (1999) | Piglets | General and respiratory disease metaphylaxis | Observational | CS | Yes: significantly effective when compared with the P and routine low-dose AB for reduction of disease and prevention of respiratory diseases, but not better than a therapeutic dose of AB |
| Schütte (2003) | Pigs | Health in general | Observational | CS/M | Yes: AB use could be reduced by 60 per cent (over 3 years) on participating farms |
| Soto and others (2008) | Piglets | Post-weaning diarrhoea and weight loss prevention | RCT non-blind | M | IR: piglets treated with HOM had less weight loss as control group and less but not significant different to P. No statistical difference between food consumption or diarrhoea |
| Coelho and others (2009) | Piglets | E coli diarrhoea prevention | RCT double-blind | CS/M | Yes: highest weight gain and significant reduction of diarrhoea compared to AB control (but medical agent of AB is known to have high resistance to E coli) |
| Camerlink and others (2010) | Piglets | E coli diarrhoea prevention | RCT single-blind | DT/CS | Yes: less transmission and duration of disease shorter and less diarrhoea than in P group |
| Da Silva and others (2011) | Pigs | Growth promotion | Observational | M | IR: last of six measurements was higher, but at slaughter no significant weight differences found. Lack of a control group (and only five pigs per group) |
AB Antibiotics, COM Combined treatment of homeopathy and antibiotics, CON Conventional treatment including antibiotics, CS Clinical signs, DT Direct test, HOM Homeopathy, IR Inconclusive results, IT Indirect test, M Measurements, P Placebo, RCT Randomised controlled trial, U Untreated