International Journal of Homoeopathic Sciences

Background: Eczema is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disorder that significantly affects quality of life. In homoeopathic practice, evaluation of remedy action and prognosis relies heavily on clinical observation. Kent’s Twelve Observations provide a structured framework to assess the patient’s response following remedy administration. However, systematic studies correlating these observations with standardized outcome measures are limited.

Aim: To explore the utility of Kent’s Twelve Observations in monitoring treatment response in cases of eczema and to correlate these observations with outcomes measured using the MONARCH scale.

Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with eczema. Cases were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individualized homoeopathic treatment was prescribed based on totality of symptoms. Patients were followed up regularly, and Kent’s observations were recorded at the third and sixth follow-ups. Treatment outcomes were assessed using the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy (MONARCH) scale. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results: Out of 30 cases, 25 patients (83.3%) showed clinical improvement, while 5 cases (16.7%) did not show significant improvement. Kent’s Observation 4 (no aggravation with steady recovery) was the most frequently observed pattern, seen in 46.4% of cases at the third follow-up and 75.9% at the sixth follow-up. On the MONARCH scale, most patients scored 9 (36.7%) and 10 (40%), indicating a strong causal relationship between homoeopathic intervention and clinical improvement.

Conclusion: Kent’s Twelve Observations serve as a reliable clinical tool for assessing remedy action and prognosis in eczema. The predominance of favourable observations and significant MONARCH scores supports the effectiveness of individualized homoeopathic management in eczema.