Publications on cattle

Authors (year)SpeciesIndicationStudy designDiagnostic measureEffect of homeopathy?
Boerms (1981)CalvesPneumonia / diarrhoea treatmentRCT non-blindCSIR: only vague improvement, no sign, differences between AB and HOM group
Frerking and Romansky-Rieken (1981)CalvesDiarrhoea treatmentRCT non-blindCSNo: repeated treatments necessary, more deaths, also no effect in combination with antibiotics
Day (1986) – trial 1Dairy cowsPostpartum disorders preventionRCT non-blindCSYes: no dead calf compared to untreated group (7 deaths). 2 of 7 cows (HOM) required assistance during birth and 18 of 18 in untreated. Fewer cases of mastitis/metritis in HOM (0/4) compared to untreated (9/10)
Day (1986) – trial 2Dairy cowsMastitis preventionRCT non-blindCSYes: mastitis cases decreased (at high infection risk). Mastitis increased in untreated ‘low risk’ group
Day (1986) – trial 3Dairy cowsMastitis preventionRCT single-blindCSYes: lower mastitis incidence compared to P
Sonnenwald (1986)Dairy cowsMastitis (acute) Individualised treatmentRCT non-blindDT/IT/CSIR: no significant difference between HOM and AB treatments. Streptococcus: better result with AB. Gram-negative bacteria: HOM more effective than AB
Stopes and Woodward (1990)Dairy cowsMastitis preventionObservationalCSNo: no preventive effect
Merck and others (1989)Dairy cowsMastitis treatmentObservationalCSYes: good healing rates especially for E coli infections
Erbe (1990)Dairy cowsRetained placenta / endometritis metaphylaxisRCT non-blindIT/CSYes: occurence of endometritis and retained placenta significantly reduced compared to P
Tiefenthaler (1990)Dairy cowsMastitis treatmentRCT non-blindDT/ITNo: no differences between HOM group, AB group and COM
Wirth (1990)Dairy cowsRetained placenta / endometritis metaphylaxisRCT non-blindIT/CSYes: occurence of endometritis and retained placenta significantly reduced compared to P
Vohla (1991)Dairy cowsPuerperal diseases & calf health (prevention)ObservationalCSNo: no differences to U and P
Knierim (1992)Dairy cowsParturition and puerperal disorders (prevention)RCT double-blindIT/CS/MNo: no influence compared to P
Schütte (1994) – trial 1Dairy cowsMastitis metaphylaxisRCT single-blindMNo: no difference between P and HOM
Schütte (1994) – trial 2Dairy cowsRetained placenta (prevention)RCT single-blindCSNo: no difference between a P and HOM
Egan (1995)Dairy cowsSubclinical mastitis treatmentObservationalDT/ITNo: no response, mastitis even deteriorated.
Searcy and others (1995)Dairy cowsSubclinical mastitis metaphylaxisRCT non-blindIT/MYes: 4.5 times less subclinical mastitis than in P group
Hümmelchen (1999)Dairy cowsPostpartum disorders (prevention)RCT non-blindDT/IT/CS/MYes: better development than P for birth, placenta retention, occurrence of mastitis other infections
Garbe (2003)Dairy cowsMastitis metaphylaxisRCT double-blindDT/IT/CSNo: no prophylactic or therapeutic effect in comparison with AB dry off or P
Verdier and others (2003)CalvesDiarrhoea treatmentRCT double-blindCS/MNo: no difference in comparison to P
Hektoen and others (2004)Dairy cowsClinical mastitis individualised treatmentRCT double-blindCSNo: no efficacy beyond P or AB group. AB also comparably poor in effectiveness
Schlecht (2004)Dairy cowsUdder health (prevention)RCT single-blindDT/ITYes: improved health parameter compared to P
Holmes and others (2005)Dairy cowsMastitis preventionRCT single-blindITNo: no significant differences between HOM and P on any sample day
Walkenhorst (2006)Dairy cowsClinical and subclinical mastitis treatmentRCT non-blindDT/IT/CSNo: no effect, only comparable with self-healing rates. AB in all cases more effective
Enbergs and Sensen (2007)Dairy cowsChronic endometritis treatmentObservationalIT/MYes: culling and conception rate improved, shorter interval until pregnancy, lower insemination index, higher first-service pregnancy rate. Comparable to hormone treatment, less effective than CON intrauterine treatment
Arlt and others (2009)Dairy cowsEndometritis preventionRCT double-blindDT/ITNo: not effective in prevention or in enhancing reproductive performance
Klocke and others (2010)Dairy cowsMastitis prevention (at drying off)RCT non-blindDT/IT/CSYes: lower SCC and ‘normal milk secretion’ compared to U, but worse than teat sealer
Werner and others (2010)Dairy cowsMastitis individualised treatmentRCT single-blindDT/CSYes: positive over P group with mastitis, no difference to AB treatment after 4 and 8 weeks
Kiarazm and others (2011)Dairy cowsSubclinical mastitis treatmentRCT single-blindDT/ITYes: SCC and bacterial detection were significantly lower in HOM than P group after treatment (day 21 and 28)
Wagenaar and others (2011)Dairy cowsMastitis metaphylaxisObservationalDT/ITNo: no improvement compared with U group
Aubry and others (2013)Dairy cowsEarly subclinical mastitis treatmentObservationalIT/MYes: significant reduction of electrical conductivity and increased milk yield 4 to 7 days after treatment
Hornig (2014)CalvesDiarrhoea treatmentRCT double- blindCS/MNo: No significant difference compared to P for all chosen parameters
Williamson and Lacy-Hulbert (2014)Dairy cowsMastitis individualised treatmentRCT non-blindCSNo: curing rate of antibiotics was significantly higher (no P or U 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, SCC Somatic cell count, U Untreated