Imperial College London
Alternate

Dr Céire Costelloe

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Visiting Professor
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 0799ceire.costelloe

 
 
//

Location

 

326Reynolds BuildingCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Banerjee:2017:10.1089/acm.2016.0310,
author = {Banerjee, K and Mathie, RT and Costelloe, C and Howick, J},
doi = {10.1089/acm.2016.0310},
journal = {Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine},
pages = {426--444},
title = {Homeopathy for Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/acm.2016.0310},
volume = {23},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of homeopathic intervention inthe treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).Method: Randomized controlled trials evaluating all forms of homeopathic treatment for AR were includedin a systematic review (SR) of studies published up to and including December 2015. Two authors independentlyscreened potential studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included symptomimprovement and total quality-of-life score. Treatment effect size was quantified as mean difference (continuousdata), or by risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (dichotomous data), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Metaanalysiswas performed after assessing heterogeneity and risk of bias.Results: Eleven studies were eligible for SR. All trials were placebo-controlled except one. Six trials used thetreatment approach known as isopathy, but they were unsuitable for meta-analysis due to problems of heterogeneityand data extraction. The overall standard of methods and reporting was poor: 8/11 trials wereassessed as ‘‘high risk of bias’’; only one trial, on isopathy for seasonal AR, possessed reliable evidence. Threetrials of variable quality (all using Galphimia glauca for seasonal AR) were included in the meta-analysis: nasalsymptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks (RR= 1.48 [95% CI 1.24–1.77] and 1.27 [95% CI 1.10–1.46], respectively)favored homeopathy compared with placebo; ocular symptom relief at 2 and 4 weeks also favored homeopathy(RR= 1.55 [95% CI 1.33–1.80] and 1.37 [95% CI 1.21–1.56], respectively). The single trial with reliableevidence had a small positive treatment effect without statistical significance. A homeopathic and a conventionalnasal spray produced equivalent improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms.Conclusions: The low or uncertain overall quality of the evidence warrants caution in drawing firm conclusionsabout intervention effects.
AU  - Banerjee,K
AU  - Mathie,RT
AU  - Costelloe,C
AU  - Howick,J
DO  - 10.1089/acm.2016.0310
EP  - 444
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 1075-5535
SP  - 426
TI  - Homeopathy for Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review
T2  - Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/acm.2016.0310
VL  - 23
ER  -
Download