Author(s):
Ashutosh Tripathi, Rakesh Gohel
Email(s):
drattripathihmo@aiimsraipur.edu.in
DOI:
10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00534 
Address:
Ashutosh Tripathi1*, Rakesh Gohel2
1Medical Officer, Department of Homoeopathy, AYUSH Building, Ground Floor, AIIMS Raipur, Chhattisgarh. PhD Scholar, Faculty of Organon of Medicine, Parul University, Waghodia, Gujarat, 391760
2PhD Supervisor, Parul University, Organon of Medicine
Principal, CVM Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, The CVM University, New Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat. Former Professor, Faculty of Organon of Medicine, Parul University, Waghodia, Gujarat, 391760.
* Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 19,
Issue - 8,
Year - 2026
ABSTRACT:
Introduction: Homoeopathy relies on the principle of individualized medicine, where the potency and repetition of remedies play a crucial role in therapeutic outcomes. Among the widely used potencies, Centesimal (C) and Fifty Millesimal (LM) scales exhibit distinct dynamism, particularly in cases requiring alternating action remedies. The efficacy of higher potency repetition compared to same potency repetition remains underexplored, especially in non-improving chronic patients. Purpose: This study aims at comparing the clinical outcomes of Centesimal and LM potencies in non-improving chronic patients treated with homoeopathic medicines exhibiting alternating action. The objective is to determine whether higher potency escalation or same potency repetition leads to better therapeutic responses. Methodology: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patient records from May 2022 to May 2024, obtained from the Department of Homoeopathy, AIIMS Raipur. The dataset included 265 Centesimal and 279 LM potency patients, analyzed for treatment response categories: Improvement, No Improvement, Aggravation, and Did-Not-Report. Descriptive statistics, Chi-Square analysis along with Logistic Regression were applied to assess associations between potency type and clinical response. Findings: The findings indicate that Centesimal potency yielded a higher improvement rate (41.51%) compared to LM potency (36.20%) in non-improving chronic cases treated with alternating action remedies. Chi-square residuals and Firth’s logistic regression consistently suggested a clinical trend favoring Centesimal, despite the absence of statistical significance. These findings suggest a non-significant numerical trend favoring Centesimal potency over LM in this registry sample, warranting further prospective validation. Originality: This study provides a unique and novel comparative insight into potency repetition strategies, offering clinical guidance for optimizing homoeopathic prescriptions in chronic non-responders. The findings increase the understanding of potency selection for alternating action remedies, ensuring evidence-based decision-making in homoeopathic practice.
Cite this article:
Ashutosh Tripathi, Rakesh Gohel. Comparative Analysis of Centesimal and Fifty Millesimal Potencies for Alternating Action Homoeopathic Medications in Non-improving Chronic Patients. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(8):3785-2. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00534
Cite(Electronic):
Ashutosh Tripathi, Rakesh Gohel. Comparative Analysis of Centesimal and Fifty Millesimal Potencies for Alternating Action Homoeopathic Medications in Non-improving Chronic Patients. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2026;19(8):3785-2. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2026.00534 Available on: https://www.rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2026-19-8-51
9. REFERENCES:
1. Raju V, Bell JJ, Merlin NJ, Dharan SS. Ethno Pharmacological Uses of Artocarpus altilis -A Review. Asian Jour Pharmac Rese. 2017; 7: 239.
2. Ainsworth JBL. Homœopathic pharmacopoeia: What are the problems. British Homoeopathic Journal. 1987; 76: 199–201.
3. Pandey V, Gupta K, Singh R. Dosing in homoeopathy: The practical approach. International Journal of Homoeopathic Sciences. 2023; 7: 43–5.
4. Tripathi A. Deciphering the Riddles of Repetition of Same Medicine in Same Potency: An In-Depth Exploration into Homoeopathic Practice. The Homoeopathic Heritage. 2025; 51: 15–21.
5. V BDP. ADHD for Childrens in Homeopathy and Alternative Methdos. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2017; 8: 205–9.
6. Jain RK, Goyal S, Bhat SN, Rao S, Sakthidharan V, Kumar P, et al. Development of Software for Automatic Analysis of Intervention in the Field of Homeopathy. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2018; 24: 422–30.
7. Ledermann EK. The effect of homœopathy and natural therapy in chronic diseases, demonstrated in a series of cases. British Homoeopathic Journal. 1945; 35: 52–9.
8. Devi AS, Aathi MK. Conservative Management of Varicose Veins. International Journal of Advances in Nursing Management. 2014; 2: 40–5.
9. S. Sakhare R, N. Kulkarni P, V. Puskar P, B. Bhatane R, N. Baramade K, D. Vibhute D. A Brief Overview of Boswellia serrata a Potential Herbal Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis. RJST. 2024; 255–64.
10. Maftei NM, Nechifor A, Tan B, Elisei AM, Pelin AM, Nechita L, et al. Therapeutic Applications for Homeopathy in Clinical Practice. Advances in Therapy. 2025; 42: 36–51.
11. Kohli M, Kohli G. Understanding of Naturopathy. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2014; 2: 135–9.
12. Ernst E. Samuel Hahnemann—Inventor of Homeopathy BT - Bizarre Medical Ideas: and the Strange Men Who Invented Them. In: Ernst E, editor. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024. p. 81–9.
13. Tripathi A. Fragmenta Decoded. Vol. 1. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd.;
14. Ahmad W, Quazi J. A Review that on Emphasizes the Traditional uses and Clinical Potential Calendula officinalis. RJPDFT. 2022; 343–8.
15. Jodh R, Tawar M, Behere S, Randhave N, Jirapure P, Ingle S. A Review on Calendula officinalis. Research Journal of Phramacognosy and Phytochemisrty. 2023; 5–10.
16. Shetty SS, Kamath V, Shetty S, Venkatesh SB, Kalghatgi S. An Overview on Treatment Strategies by Allopathic and Alternative Forms of Medicines in Management of COVID -19. RJPT. 2022; 935–40.
17. Bala DrR, Srivastava DrA. A review on history of LM potency: Tracing its roots in the past. Int J Homoeopathic Sci. 2019; 3: 26–31.
18. Adler U. LM or Q potencies: retrospection of its use during 15 years in Brazil. Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung. 2005;250.
19. Adler UC, Acorinte AC, Calzavara FO, Da Silva AA, De Toledo Cesar A, Adler MS, et al. Double-blind evaluation of homeopathy on cocaine craving: a randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2018; 16: 178–84.
20. Ahmad S, Rehman T, Abbasi W. Homoeopathic approach for the treatment of cancer. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2018; 12: 157.
21. Wulfsberg T. LM Potencies—Sometimes a Must. Homœopathic Links. 2019;32:162–6.
22. Chandrani S, Thenmozhi A. Potential Therapeutics from Ayurveda, Siddha, and Homeopathic Medical System for Alzheimer’s Disease. In 2023. p. 171–95.
23. Jutte R, Riley D. A review of the use and role of low potencies in homeopathy. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2005; 13: 291–6.
24. Schmidt JM. Q/LM potencies: Historical reasons for the long delay in their recognition. Homeopathy. 2006;95:121–2.
25. Patil SR, Lucas JP. A Study of LM Scale Potency in Homoeopathic Practice. Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Innovation [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2026 Feb 9];8. Available from: https://jmedpharm.com/index.php/home/article/view/100
26. Prashanth Bhat N, Bakthavatchalam P, Krishnan H, Shetty A, Chandracharya PL. Effect of Ultra-diluted Medicines in Depression and Anxiety: A Narrative Review. RJPT. 2021; 5059–64.
27. Arul M. Homœopathy and the eradication of hereditary disease. British Homoeopathic Journal. 1990;79:233–4.
28. Deo L, Sangtani R, Kumar R, Kumar Gupta A, Pawar S. Multiple Renal Calculi – Case Report. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 1127–33.
29. Aphale P, Sharma D. To Study and Compare the Efficacy of LM Potency and Centesimal Potency of Homoeopathic Medicine Acid Phosphoricum in Management of Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 1689–94.