We thank Dr. Jaiswal et al for their feedback 1 on our article. 2 The letter's authors raised two methodological shortcomings: the selection of an inappropriate reference standard and the application of a reductionist analytical method. We view repertories, for analytical purposes, as structured data retrieval systems, in which rubrics serve as inputs and remedies as outputs. Our methodological approach aims to evaluate the informational coverage and retrieval efficiency of this system within a defined operational framework. Our method does not simulate a clinical scenario or the clinical outcome. Within this context, Kent's repertory fails to encompass all available symptomatology. 3 4 Accordingly, our approach focused on the informational coverage of Kent's repertory relative to a specified dataset and its retrieval efficiency, rather than on making claims regarding its clinical adequacy. Hering's Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica constitutes an appropriate reference dataset for examining the informational coverage, because Hering is recognized as the original prover of Allium cepa . Furthermore, Guiding Symptoms represents a mature compilation 5 of data (symptoms) that have undergone repeated confirmation and verification. The identification of “omissions” in our study reflects differences in informational coverage relative to this defined dataset, rather than implying absolute deficiency. Nevertheless, a substantial lack of coverage—such as the omission of a large proportion of symptoms—may reasonably be interpreted as a limitation of the repertory's coverage. This limitation remains relevant irrespective of repertory's derivation of information from multiple streams of homeopathic knowledge. We deliberately employed a combinatorial approach to generate large-scale symptom combinations, thereby constructing a theoretical search space for testing the retrieval efficiency of the repertory. This approach enables the assessment of the repertory's ability to consistently retrieve the correct remedy across a wide range of possible input combinations. The repertory's retrieval of correct remedy in this search space is rooted in objectivity, standardization and binary outcome. The outcomes of our method—informational coverage and retrieval efficiency—are reproducible within a defined computational framework and should be interpreted in the context of the repertory as a data retrieval system rather than as outcomes of a clinical scenario. We propose that repertories with good informational coverage and efficient retrieval mechanisms may improve clinical decisions of homeopaths who use them, while acknowledging that clinical decisions depend on additional factors beyond the scope of this analysis. We once again thank the authors of the letter for bringing this discussion to our attention. Publication History Received: 03 April 2026 Accepted: 07 April 2026 Article published online: 23 June 2026 © 2026. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany Letter to this article: A Novel Method for Estimating the Sensitivity of Homeopathic Repertories: A Critical Analysis Homeopathy eFirst DOI: 10.1055/a-2845-4916
Poruthukaren et al. (Tue,) studied this question.