|
|
|
|
Homeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Review). 2006 Vickers A, Smith C This review was an analysis of seven studies, three prevention trials and four treatment trials. There was a total of 2265 patients in the prevention trials and 1194 patients in the treatment trials. Two of the seven studies had data that could be included for statistical analysis. The outcome showed no evidence that oscillococcinum can prevent disease, however the treatment groups did show a shortening of illness by 0.28 days when oscillococcinum was used (RR 1.08; CI 1.17 to 1.00). The study did also state that there is need for a larger study since the power of this study was so low and therefore further research is warranted. Many of the other trials in the study were thrown out because of poor data collection and/or reporting. In one study, for example, treatment length changed from 8 days to 4 days between trials. It is not stated why this was done. Some researchers question whether these data looked more favorable during one of the time frames compared to a different time frame for the other study. Problems such as this poor data reporting have been consistent in the critical evaluation of many homeopathic studies.
A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes. 1989 Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D'Adhemar D, Balducci F In this French study, 237 patients received the test drug and 241 received placebo. There were specific criteria for the presence of flu or flu-like illness including rectal temperature of ≥38° C, and at least two of the following symptoms: headache, stiffness, lumbar and articular pain, and shivers. The first signs of illness must have occurred less than 24 hours of entry. Recovery was defined as temperature less than 37.5° C and absence all five other symptoms. The outcome showed a higher proportion of recovery at 48 hours in the treatment group as compared to the placebo group (17.1 % vs 10.3%, P=0.03). These data are seen as promising, however, the authors admit it is not conclusive and they cannot explain the mechanism of action for the treatment. There were also some problems with the study. Mainly that the evidence was collected by the subjects and much of the information gathered was subjective information from the patients, not physicians. These are also small study groups, and the authors state that there is a need for a larger study.
|
|
|