Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life-a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Homeopathic Medicines for the Treatment of Acute Otitis Media: a Real-World Cohort Study on Recurrences and Antibiotic Prescriptions Compared to those with Conventional Treatments.Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-12-13Concerns/Issues about Article · Concerns/Issues about Methods · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life. One hundred eight Indian singleton newborns delivered at 37 to 42 weeks gestation were randomised at birth (1:1) to receive either homoeopathic or conventional primary care for any acute illness over the study period. In the homoeopathic group, conventional medical treatment was added when medically indicated. Clinicians and parents were unblinded. Children in the homoeopathic group experienced significantly fewer sick days than those in the conventional group (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001), with correspondingly fewer sickness episodes (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.87; p = .013), as well as fewer respiratory illnesses over the 24-month period. They were taller (F (1, 97) = 8.92, p = .004, partial eta squared = 0.84) but not heavier than their conventionally treated counterparts. They required fewer antibiotics, and their treatment cost was lower.
conclusionHomoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.
trial registrationClinical Trial Registry-India (2018/09/015641). https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php What is Known: • Due to their holistic nature, many Complementary and Alternative Medical (CAM) modalities are not readily amenable to assessment by head-to-head RCT for a given Indication. • We propose a pragmatic, RCT comparing homoeopathic with conventional medicine as a system. WHAT IS NEW: • Homoeopathic was apparently superior to conventional primary care in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illness episodes and was significantly associated with growth in height but not weight and required fewer antibiotics in children from birth to 24 months of age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.