“Most diseases involve multiple body systems, with many symptoms, and this is especially the case with chronic disease. In such cases, this CoLoMo concept is applied first to the presenting  complaint, and then, in turn, to each of the other (concomitant)  complaints of the case, which must themselves be defined, as far as is possible or sufficient for homœopathic diagnosis.
For example, a patient presents with eczema, which we clearly define by its appearance & description, and its modalities; and upon further questioning, we learn of their recurrent migraine, and persistent insomnia. In this case, these three symptoms (eczema, migraine, insomnia), clearly defined, and able to be identified (diagnosed) independently of the other , yet which co-exist, in syndromy  within the one patient, indeed reveal the entire disease – their unique combination provides the necessary distinction for the homœopathic diagnosis. Equally, the combination of such independently identifiable complaints, even when themselves ‘incomplete’ may still provide sufficient distinction for our purpose. Let me provide an example:
CG, female, 27 years, secretary: Presented October, 2000 with inability to conceive since last, 2 years of trying. All tests show no reason, and now feels guilty for the two abortions she had as a teenager, when she had readily conceived. Within the past year or so, she has put on a significant amount of weight, yet her diet had not changed. Also, not infrequently woken with cramps in her legs. No other information could be ascertained. Rubrics taken:
– Sexual ability, inadequate, 487 (presenting complaint)
– Obesity, 1042 (concomitant complaint)
– Cramping pains, outer parts, 949 (concomitant complaint)
Rx: Calc, 30 (L) o.m.
15 Nov., 00Phoned to cancel next appointment due to being pregnant. Very Happy – “It’s a miracle.”
Discussion: This case demonstrates two significant points: firstly, effective application of TBR requires a thorough comprehension of rubric meaning, their scope and applicability in the clinical situation; secondly, even in the absence of modalities, the precise combination  of independently identifiable complaints, may still provide sufficient distinction for homœopathic diagnosis.”