Background Though frequently used in practice, research studies have shown inconclusive benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of warts. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial, with preliminary assessment of differences between effects of individualized homeopathic (IH) medicines and placebos in treatment of cutaneous warts.
Methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) was conducted at the dermatology outpatient department of D.N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30). Primary outcome measures were numbers and sizes of the warts; secondary outcome was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire measured at baseline, and every month up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.
Results Attrition rate was 11.6% (IH, 3; placebo, 4). Intra-group changes were significantly greater (all p < 0.05, Friedman tests) in IH than placebo. Inter-group differences were statistically non-significant (all p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U tests) with small effect sizes—both in the primary outcomes (number of warts after 3 months: IH median [inter-quartile range; IQR] 1 [1, 3] vs. placebo 1 [1, 2]; p = 0.741; size of warts after 3 months: IH 5.6 mm [2.6, 40.2] vs. placebo 6.3 [0.8, 16.7]; p = 0.515) and in the secondary outcomes (DLQI total after 3 months: IH 4.5 [2, 6.2] vs. placebo 4.5 [2.5, 8]; p = 0.935). Thuja occidentalis (28.3%), Natrum muriaticum (10%) and Sulphur (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, homeopathic aggravations, or serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusion As regards efficacy, the preliminary study was inconclusive, with a statistically non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy. The trial succeeded in showing that an adequately powered definitive trial is both feasible and warranted.
Trial Registration CTRI/2019/10/021659; UTN: U1111–1241–7340
Background Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide, especially in the paediatric age group. Conventional medications have a minimal role in treating and preventing those diseases and an alternative for this is warranted. In this regard, homoeopathy can be a proper consideration, but the comparative effect and safety need critical evaluation.
Methods To evaluate the role of homoeopathic treatment in URTI, particularly in children, we conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Core-Hom, Cochrane library and Cam-quest database. All the relevant studies were included for a critical review.
Results One-hundred forty articles were found in a preliminary search, and for review, we included 17 studies related to URTI in paediatric age group. All the studies were very diverse in the methodology, type of homoeopathy used and outcome measurement. Different types of homoeopathy in terms of individualised, complex syrup and home-medication were used in studies. Fourteen studies reported the role of homoeopathy in reducing the severity of symptoms, efficacy beyond placebo, superiority or non-inferiority over conventional medications, in lowering the consumption of antibiotics and as prophylaxis. On the other hand, three studies found little or no effect in reducing symptoms or number of visits.
Conclusions Homoeopathic treatment improves the symptoms and reduces the severity of URTI in the paediatric age group. It can be an effective and safe way of treatment for reducing the burden of the disease, thus improving the quality of life. Owing to the diversity among the studies, more high-quality trials with focused questions are needed for further conclusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.