Homöopathie bei akuter Rhinosinusitis

Friese, Karl-Heinz; Zabalotnyi, D. I.

doi:10.1007/s00106-006-1480-x

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine trials (22%) were rated as B (48,50,53,59,64,67,69,73,75), demonstrating average quality and medium risk of bias. A total of 22 trials (54%) reported both sample size calculations and intention to treat analyses.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Rctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights:• This review address the naive assumption that because of the generally diluted doses used homeopathy must be safe• This review touches the neglected issue of the distinction between homeopathic aggravation, adverse reactions and adverse effects• We found a similar risk for homeopathic treatment compared to controls such as placebo and conventional medicine. Words: 5,187 Abstract ObjectivesHomeopathy is a popular treatment modality among patient, however there is sparse research about adverse effects of homeopathy. A concept unique for homeopathy, is homeopathic aggravation that is understood as a transient worsening of the patients' symptoms before an 2 expected improvement occurs. From a risk perspective it is vital that a distinction between homeopathic aggravations and adverse effects is established. There is a lack of systematic information on how frequent adverse effects and homeopathic aggravations are reported in studies. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Design and settingSixteen electronic databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The searches were limited from the year 1995 to January 2011. Forty-one RCTs, with a total of 6.055 participants were included. A subtotal of 39 studies was included in the additional metaanalysis. ResultsA total of 28 trials (68%) reported adverse effects and five trials (12%) reported homeopathic aggravations. The meta-analysis (including six subgroup comparisons) demonstrated that no significant difference was found between homeopathy and control with OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14, I 2 = 54%. More than two third of the adverse effects were classified as grade 1 (68%) and two third were classified as grade 2 (25%) and grade 3 (6%) according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects. Homeopathic aggravation was classified as grade 1 (98%) and grade 3 (2%), suggesting that homeopathic aggravations were reported to be less severe than adverse effects. The methodological quality according to a method recommended in the Cochrane handbook for RCTs, was high. ConclusionAdverse effects including the concept of homeopathic aggravations are commonly reported in trials. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects to be similar for patients randomized to homeopathic treatment compared to patients randomized to placebo and conventional medicine.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Rctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These trials assessed the symptoms as mild/moderate or severe, or serious or non-serious. A three or four point tolerability scale was used in six trials (49,50,59,84,85,88). Adverse effects were descriptively reported in five trials (49,51,60,78,79).…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of the Rctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kristoffersen

Alræk

Liu

2016

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Friese and Zabolotnyi [25] reported on a 10-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult patients with acute rhinosinusitis that randomized 72 patients to the active agent group and 72 patients to the placebo group. The active drug was the complex homeopathic remedy (Cinnabaris Pentarkan H) that consists of Cinnabaris D3, Echinacea D1, Hydrastis (orangeroot) D3, and potassium dichromate D3.…”

Section: What Can We Deduce From Human Side Effects Documented In Metmentioning

confidence: 99%

Material Risks of Homeopathic Medicinal Products: Regulatory Frameworks, Results of Preclinical Toxicology, and Clinical Meta-Analyses and Their Implications

Koller

2020

Complement Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homeopathy is widely used and broadly accepted by health care professionals and the general public but less in academic circles. To assess possible material health risks of homeopathic medicinal products, it is necessary to identify, select, and synthesize the findings of recent reviews of controlled homeopathic clinical trials. Matching these findings with experimental data from toxicological studies helps to clarify what is known and not known about the material risks of homeopathic medicines. Rules for toxicological risk assessment and management need to be applied independently of individual attitudes towards specific therapeutic options. European regulatory bodies have developed special protocols and decision trees to assure the safety of nonindividualized homeopathic remedies. This narrative review leads to suggestions that could ease and improve toxicological decision making. No homeopathy-specific type or pattern of side effects could be extracted from the meta-analysis data. No differences in the frequency of adverse reactions between homeopathic treatment and placebo treatment could be seen, no matter whether adverse events were reported in a quantitative or a qualitative manner. Some patterns of side effects show that adverse reactions do not necessarily correlate with treatment but with the condition of the patient. Overall, the controlled clinical data available for the material risk assessment of homeopathic remedies support the statement that, if a risk exists, it must be so small that it has not yet been established. To make our risk findings useful for personal decisions regarding homeopathy, we provide a thought experiment based on four different health situations and ask the question: is homeopathy as a monotherapy or as an add-on treatment an option or should it be rejected?

show abstract

“…Уже на протяжении многих лет комплексный натуральный препарат «Циннабсин» с успехом применяется при лечении риносинусита, аденоидита, назофарингита [3,7,8]. Клинические эффекты препарата связывают с восстановлением носового дыхания, разжижением густого носового секрета, активацией механизмов естественного очищения полости носа и околоносовых пазух и, предположительно, с позитивным влиянием на реакции иммунитета, особенно местного характера.…”

unclassified

Immunomodulating properties of Cinnabsin

Melnikov

Zabolotnaya

Zajac

et al. 2019

OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Complex natural medicines are successfully used in various inflammatory diseases of the upper respiratory tract, but their immunomodulatory activity has not been studied enough, in particular in case of Cinnabsin. Therefore, the aim of the study was to determine the effect of the medicine on the production of cellular and humoral factors of immunity and inflammation by tonsil cells of the children. Materials and methods: The studies were performed in vitro using 24-hour cultures of children`s pharyngeal tonsil cells after adenotomy. Altogether 90 samples of cultures were examined before and after the influence of the medicine. The effect of complex natural medicine Cinnabsin on the cells production of various cytokine groups (γ-interferon, interleukins 1, 4, 10), expression of surface antigens CD14+, CD16+, and cytolytic activity of natural killer cells were investigated. Methods of enzyme immunoassay, light microscopy and cellular cytolysis with xenogenic targets were used. Statistical processing was carried out with the Student`s non-parametric criterion, and the Fisher`s angle transformation method when processing ratios. Results: Cinnabsin, both in dosage 10 μg/ml and 100μg/ml, increased the number of cells with the expression of the antigen CD16+ and partially CD14+, activated the natural cytotoxic cells of the tonsils, reduced the production of IL-1β and increased the production of IL-10 and γ-interferon in cell culture. Conclusion: According to the sum of the effects and the immunomodulation vectors, it is possible to state the modulating effect of the medicine on the activity of various immunity reactions, which allows concluding the pronounced anti-inflammatory and antiviral effect of Cinnabsin.

show abstract

Homöopathie bei akuter Rhinosinusitis

Abstract: The homeopathic product allows an effective and tolerable treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Material Risks of Homeopathic Medicinal Products: Regulatory Frameworks, Results of Preclinical Toxicology, and Clinical Meta-Analyses and Their Implications

Immunomodulating properties of Cinnabsin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About