ReviewHeliyon2024
The effectiveness of homeopathy in relieving symptoms and reducing antibiotic use in patients with otitis media: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers 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
- Clinical research on homeopathic preparations: protocol template for a series of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- ENHANCE: a global collaborative research programme investigating the role of homeopathy in antimicrobial stewardship.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2026Article
- A core outcome set for acute otitis media (COS-AOM) for primary and community care studies.BMC primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review of clinical trial evidence aims to determine whether homeopathy can effectively relieve symptoms and reduce antibiotic use in patients diagnosed with otitis media (OM). Methods: Seven databases and four trial registries were searched. Eligible studies included randomised- and non-randomised-controlled-trials in patients diagnosed with OM. Studies on Individualised- and non-Individualised-Homeopathy (IH, non-IH) were included, and controls were inactive and/or active treatment. Primary outcomes were clinical-improvement and antibiotic-use. Data extraction, Risk of Bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were performed using established methodology. Results: Nine studies (IH = 4, non-IH = 5) comprising seven Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) and two non-RCTs (nRCTS) compared homeopathy with placebo (n = 2) or standard care (n = 7). 4/7 included RCTs reported statistically significant individual outcomes at relevant time points (symptom score, MEE, and antibiotic use) favouring homeopathy. However, heterogeneity of study designs, homeopathic interventions and outcome measures hindered the pooling of data for most outcomes, except for antibiotic use (non-IH). Add-on non-IH reduced filled antibiotic prescriptions by 46 % (RR = 0.54 [95%CI: 0.28, 1.06], P = 0.07, I Conclusions: The evidence base for the effectiveness of homeopathy and OM treatment is modest in study number, size, and risk of bias assessment. Individual RCTs report positive effects on clinical improvement and/or antibiotic use at relevant time points with homeopathy with no safety issues. Due to heterogeneity, the current evidence is insufficient to satisfactorily answer whether homeopathy is effective for clinical improvement and reducing antibiotic use in patients with OM. A Core Outcome Set for OM for future research is warranted to improve the potential for meta-analyses and strengthen the evidence base.
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.