Randomized controlled pilot study to compareHomeopathy and Conventional therapy in AcuteOtitis Media’

Regional Research Institute of Homeopathy, Jaipur (Rajasthan), India.
Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy (Impact Factor: 0.76). 01/2012; 101(January):5-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2011.08.003


Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Homeopathy and Conventional therapy in
Acute Otitis Media (AOM).
Method: A randomized placebo-controlled parallel group pilot study of homeopathic
vs conventional treatment for AOM was conducted in Jaipur, India. Patients were randomized
by a computer generated random number list to receive either individualized
homeopathic medicines in fifty millesimal (LM) potencies, or conventional treatment including
analgesics, antipyretics and anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients who did not improve
were prescribed antibiotics at the 3rd day. Outcomes were assessed by the
Acute Otitis Media-Severity of Symptoms (AOM-SOS) Scale and Tympanic Membrane
Examination over 21 days.
Results: 81 patients were included, 80 completed follow-up: 41 for conventional and 40
for homeopathic treatment. In the Conventional group, all 40 (100%) patients were
cured, in the Homeopathy group, 38 (95%) patients were cured while 02 (5%) patients
were lost to the last two follow-up. By the 3rd day of treatment, 4 patients were cured
in Homeopathy group but in Conventional group only one patient was cured. In the Conventional
group antibiotics were prescribed in 39 (97.5%), no antibiotics were required in
the Homeopathy group. 85% of patients were prescribed six homeopathic medicines.
Conclusion: Individualized homeopathy is an effective conventional treatment in AOM,
there were no significant differences between groups in the main outcome. Symptomatic
improvement was quicker in the Homeopathy group, and there was a large difference
in antibiotic requirements, favouring homeopathy. Further work on a larger scale
should be conducted.

  • No preview · Article · Jan 2012 · Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionAt the end of 2011, a report was published by the Ministry of Health on the use of natural therapies in Spain, which included an analysis of the scientific evidence on homeopathy.Objectives To critically analyze the scientific and methodological bases of this report, and provide an update based on a systematic analysis of the scientific evidence on homeopathy.MethodologyWe performed a scientific analysis of the content of the report together with a literature search for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published up to June 2011 by using the key word “homeopathy” in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Manual searches were also performed in the main digital libraries on homeopathy.ResultsThe Ministry of Health's report shows major limitations that prevent generalization of its results: a) the report does not specify the inclusion/exclusion criteria of 9 of the studies included and consequently the validity of the selected articles cannot be evaluated: b) a flowchart of the studies found and analyzed is lacking; c) the scales and measures used to evaluate the quality of the articles cited are not specified; d) the studies are limited to literature reviews in specific diseases or therapeutic areas; d) the literature search was restricted to studies published up to 2007, even though the conclusions drawn in the report were generalized to 2011. In our review, we found 30 additional systematic reviews/meta-analyses to the 9 reviews cited in the report. These reviews analyze the efficacy of homeopathy in 23 indications, 14 more than those included in the report. There is solid scientific evidence on homeopathy in diverse indications, such as childhood diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infections, dizziness and radiodermitis, among others.Conclusions The evaluations in the Ministry of Health's report are insufficiently transparent and systematic and contain major methodological biases that prevent generalization of its results. There is solid scientific evidence in various indications that show that homeopathy has an effect beyond the placebo effect.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2012 · Revista Medica de Homeopatia
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The public health and individual risks of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and conventional over-the-counter symptomatic drugs in pediatric treatment of acute otitis media (AOM) and upper respiratory infections (URIs) are significant. Clinical research suggests that over-the-counter homeopathic medicines offer pragmatic treatment alternatives to conventional drugs for symptom relief in children with uncomplicated AOM or URIs. Homeopathy is a controversial but demonstrably safe and effective 200-year-old whole system of complementary and alternative medicine used worldwide. Numerous clinical studies demonstrate that homeopathy accelerates early symptom relief in acute illnesses at much lower risk than conventional drug approaches. Evidence-based advantages for homeopathy include lower antibiotic fill rates during watchful waiting in otitis media, fewer and less serious side effects, absence of drug-drug interactions, and reduced parental sick leave from work. Emerging evidence from basic and preclinical science research counter the skeptics' claims that homeopathic remedies are biologically inert placebos. Consumers already accept and use homeopathic medicines for self care, as evidenced by annual US consumer expenditures of $2.9 billion on homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy appears equivalent to and safer than conventional standard care in comparative effectiveness trials, but additional well-designed efficacy trials are indicated. Nonetheless, the existing research evidence on safety supports pragmatic use of homeopathy in order to "first do no harm" in the early symptom management of otherwise uncomplicated AOM and URIs in children.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013
Show more