BACKGROUND: Influenza is a highly infectious viral disease that is particularly common in the winter months. Oscillococcinum® is a patented homeopathic medicine that is made from a 1% solution of wild duck heart and liver extract, which is then serially diluted 200 times with water and alcohol.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum® is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August week 4, 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (4 September 2014), AMED (2006 to September 2014), Web of Science (1985 to September 2014), LILACS (1985 to September 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We contacted the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum® for information on further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum® in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the eligible trials.
MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.
BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies are routinely used for the management of cutaneous warts. However, there is a lack of evidence-based data on their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the efficacy of systemic treatments for cutaneous warts.
METHODS: We designed a systematic review of the randomized controlled clinical trials (1962 to April 2010) investigating systemic therapies for the treatment of cutaneous warts. We obtained data from MEDLINE, PubMed, Current Contents, reference lists, and specialist textbooks, with no restriction on language. The main outcome measures were the total clearance of warts and the adverse effects.
RESULTS: There was substantial heterogeneity in the design of the trials. No consistent evidence was found for the efficacy of cimetidine, levamisole or homeopathy, and only limited evidence was found for the efficacy of zinc.
CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed trials of systemic treatments for cutaneous warts were highly variable in methods and quality, and there was a paucity of evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials on which to base the rational use of such therapies. Limited evidence is emerging that zinc may be effective in selected populations with zinc deficiency.
BACKGROUND: Homeopathy is often advocated for patients with eczema.
OBJECTIVES: This article systematically reviews the evidence from controlled clinical trials of any type of homeopathic treatment for any type of eczema.
METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library with no restrictions on time or language. In addition, the bibliographies of the retrieved articles and our departmental files were hand searched. All controlled trials of homeopathy in patients with eczema were considered. Their methodological quality was estimated using the Jadad score.
RESULTS: One randomized and two nonrandomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. All were methodologically weak. None demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from controlled clinical trials therefore fails to show that homeopathy is an efficacious treatment for eczema.
BACKGROUND: Various pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions have been used to suppress lactation after childbirth and relieve associated symptoms. Despite the large volume of literature on the subject, there is currently no universal guideline on the most appropriate approach for suppressing lactation in postpartum women.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions used for suppression of lactation in postpartum women (who have not breastfed or expressed breastmilk) to determine which approach has the greatest comparative benefits with least risk.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatments used for suppression of postpartum lactation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 trials (6428 women). Twenty-two trials did not contribute data to the meta-analyses. The trials were generally small and of limited quality. Three trials (107 women) indicated that bromocriptine significantly reduced the proportion of women lactating compared with no treatment at or within seven days postpartum (three trials, 107 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.54). Seven trials involving oestrogen preparations (diethylstilbestrol, quinestrol, chlorotrianisene, hexestrol) suggested that they significantly reduced the proportion of lactating women compared with no treatment at or within seven days postpartum (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56). We found no trials comparing non-pharmacologic methods with no treatment. Trials comparing bromocriptine with other pharmacologic agents such as methergoline, prostaglandins, pyridoxine, carbegoline, diethylstilbestrol and cyclofenil suggested similarity in their effectiveness. Side effects were poorly reported in the trials and no case of thromboembolism was recorded in the four trials that reported it as an outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence that some pharmacologic treatments (most of which are currently unavailable to the public) are better than no treatment for suppressing lactation symptoms in the first postpartum week. No evidence currently exists to indicate whether non-pharmacologic approaches are more effective than no treatment. Presently, there is insufficient evidence to address the side effects of methods employed for suppressing lactation. When women desire treatment, bromocriptine may be considered where it is registered for lactation suppression in those without predisposition to its major side effects of public concerns. Many trials did not contribute data that could be included in analyses. Large randomised trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic (especially bromocriptine) and non-pharmacologic methods with no treatment. Such trials should consider the acceptability of the intervention and lactation symptoms of concern to women and be large enough to detect clinically important differences in major side effects between comparison groups.
Background: Hypericum perforatum (St. John''s Wort) has been used for a variety of medicinal indications. Most recent research has focussed on its use in herbal form for depression, but its claimed analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties in homeopathic form have also led to a number of studies in patients with acute pain conditions. This systematic review overviews the literature on the use of St. John''s Wort for pain conditions in homeopathic dental practice. Material and methods: PubMed, EMBASE, AMED, CAMbase and the electronic archives of Thieme Publishers were searched with the search terms “(Hypericum OR St. Johns Wort) AND pain”. We reviewed and meta-analysed the evidence on Hypericum in pain after tooth extraction was carried out. Results: Twenty one relevant articles were found: four described general recommendations, three basic research, six reported studies in dental care and eight were expert opinions or case reports. Four studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. There was marked high heterogeneity in the effects pain (Chi-Squared = 26.46; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.89). The overall effect of 0.24 (95% CI: [0.06; 1.03]) favours Hypericum but is not statistically significant. Conclusion: Although case reports suggest therapeutic potential of Hypericum for pain conditions in dental care, this effect is not currently supported by clinical studies. All studies included in this meta-analysis used Arnica montana as well as Hypericum the results are more influenced by Arnica than Hypericum. Further clinical controlled trials of Hypericum alone in dental practice should be performed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine which analgesic modalities used following discharge have the greatest efficacy in reducing postoperative pain after elective non-axial orthopedic surgery.
DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was conducted using the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, as well as clinical practice guidelines databases and trial registries. Titles and abstracts were perused by two reviewers for randomized clinical trials in English fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessments, including the Oxford Quality Score, selective reporting, and sources of funding, were also performed.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity/relief, global patient evaluation, and use of rescue analgesia, as well as adverse events and withdrawals.
RESULTS: 2,167 articles were retrieved and 23 articles were eligible for inclusion. They investigated analgesic modalities including alternative therapies (5); cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (3); nonselective, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (12); opioids (2); and other pharmaceutical classes (1). Cycooxygenase-2 inhibitors and opioids demonstrated significant efficacy with minimal side effects. Most nonselective NSAIDs were effective analgesics but had a poorer side-effect profile. Alternative therapies demonstrated no significant efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Opioids and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are effective in providing analgesia in the extended postoperative period following orthopedic surgery with a minimal side-effect profile, while nonselective NSAIDs need to be treated with caution. Homeopathy is not an effective analgesic, while acupuncture has varied evidence and effectiveness. Treatment of postoperative fatigue may also improve analgesia control. This study provides orthopedic surgeons with a basis for evidence-based prescribing of postdischarge analgesia. However, further studies to validate these results against modern reporting standards are needed.
BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, patients with chronic diseases/illnesses use complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). The use of CAM is also substantial among patients with diseases/illnesses of unknown aetiology. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also termed myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), is no exception. Hence, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of CAM treatments in patients with CFS/ME was undertaken to summarise the existing evidence from RCTs of CAM treatments in this patient population.
METHODS: Seventeen data sources were searched up to 13th August 2011. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any type of CAM therapy used for treating CFS were included, with the exception of acupuncture and complex herbal medicines; studies were included regardless of blinding. Controlled clinical trials, uncontrolled observational studies, and case studies were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 26 RCTs, which included 3,273 participants, met our inclusion criteria. The CAM therapy from the RCTs included the following: mind-body medicine, distant healing, massage, tuina and tai chi, homeopathy, ginseng, and dietary supplementation. Studies of qigong, massage and tuina were demonstrated to have positive effects, whereas distant healing failed to do so. Compared with placebo, homeopathy also had insufficient evidence of symptom improvement in CFS. Seventeen studies tested supplements for CFS. Most of the supplements failed to show beneficial effects for CFS, with the exception of NADH and magnesium.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our systematic review provide limited evidence for the effectiveness of CAM therapy in relieving symptoms of CFS. However, we are not able to draw firm conclusions concerning CAM therapy for CFS due to the limited number of RCTs for each therapy, the small sample size of each study and the high risk of bias in these trials. Further rigorous RCTs that focus on promising CAM therapies are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Nocturnal enuresis (bedwetting) is a socially disruptive and stressful condition which affects around 15% to 20% of five year olds, and up to 2% of young adults.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of complementary interventions and others such as surgery or diet on nocturnal enuresis in children, and to compare them with other interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed (1950 to June 2010), EMBASE (1980 to June 2010), the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) (1984 to June 2010), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1975 to June 2010), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to June 2010), VIP database (1989 to June 2010), and the reference lists of relevant articles, all last searched 26 June 2010. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of complementary and other miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children were included except those focused solely on daytime wetting. Comparison interventions could include no treatment, placebo or sham treatment, alarms, simple behavioural treatment, desmopressin, imipramine and miscellaneous other drugs and interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the eligible trials, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: In 24 randomised controlled trials, 2334 children were studied, of whom 1283 received a complementary intervention. The quality of the trials was poor: 5 trials were quasi-randomised, 5 showed differences at baseline and 17 lacked follow up data.
The outcome was better after hypnosis than imipramine in one trial (relative risk (RR) for failure or relapse after stopping treatment 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.78). Psychotherapy appeared to be better in terms of fewer children failing or relapsing than both alarm (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85) and rewards (RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.90) but this depended on data from only one trial. Medicinal herbs had better results than desmopressin in one trial (RR for failure or relapse after stopping treatment 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85). Acupuncture had better results than sham control acupuncture (RR for failure or relapse after stopping treatment 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.94) in a further trial. Active chiropractic adjustment had better results than sham adjustment (RR for failure to improve 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95). However, each of these findings came from small single trials, and must be verified in further trials. The findings for diet and faradization were unreliable, and there were no trials including homeopathy or surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was weak evidence to support the use of hypnosis, psychotherapy, acupuncture, chiropractic and medicinal herbs but it was provided in each case by single small trials, some of dubious methodological rigour. Robust randomised trials are required with efficacy, cost-effectiveness and adverse effects clearly reported.
BACKGROUND: Homoeopathic therapies are routinely used for the management of skin diseases. However, there is a lack of evidence-based data on their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments in dermatology.
METHODS: We designed a systematic review of the controlled clinical trials (January 1962-April 2011) investigating homoeopathic therapies for the treatment of cutaneous diseases. We collected data from MEDLINE, PubMed, Current Contents, HomInform (Glasgow), reference lists, specialist textbooks and contacts with homoeopathic manufacturers. There was no restriction on language. Subsets were defined according to treated skin disease/condition. For each subset, two reviewers extracted data for information on study quality, type of remedy, population and outcomes.
RESULTS: After an extensive search, we isolated a very limited number of trials investigating homoeopathic treatments for cutaneous diseases. Overall, of the 12 trials with interpretable results, nine trials indicated no positive effects of homoeopathy. The three trials showing a positive effect were of low methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed trials of homoeopathic treatments for cutaneous diseases were highly variable in methods and quality. We did not find sufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single dermatological condition.
Influenza is a highly infectious viral disease that is particularly common in the winter months. Oscillococcinum® is a patented homeopathic medicine that is made from a 1% solution of wild duck heart and liver extract, which is then serially diluted 200 times with water and alcohol.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum® is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August week 4, 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (4 September 2014), AMED (2006 to September 2014), Web of Science (1985 to September 2014), LILACS (1985 to September 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We contacted the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum® for information on further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum® in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the eligible trials.
MAIN RESULTS:
No new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.
