Homeopathic Treatment for Pediatrics

A study recently published in Global Pediatric Health by van Haselen et al. (2016) investigated the use of a homeopathic remedy as an add on therapy for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) in paediatrics. This paper provides an overview of that research, including his methodology and results, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

The aim of the research was to determine whether or not the addition of a homeopathic remedy; Influid, would improve the outcome for paediatrics presenting with upper respiratory tract infections if added to an existing treatment of paracetamol, known as acetaminophen in the United States (van Haselen et al., 2016). The researchers note that homeopathy is increasing the accepted in Germany, including use the treatment of colds and flu, or flulike infections. The aim is to assess a homeopathic remedy which is specifically designed for the treatment of flulike infections with fever, and other acute viral URTI's.

the research methodology was undertaken with a sample of 261 paediatric patients located in the UK and Germany between the ages of one and 11 years of age that presented with symptoms of a URTI which had been present for up to 24 hours (van Haselen et al., 2016). In addition to be included in the study the children also required to have a temperature above 37.5°C, and one of three symptoms out of nasal, pharyngeal, cough, and one out of five symptoms of tiredness, weakness, being less active, aches, and irritability (van Haselen et al., 2016). The children were then assigned one of two treatment groups; standard and demand symptomatic treatment, such as paracetamol, or the standard treatment plus Influid (van Haselen et al., 2016). To assess the results, parents were asked to keep a diary recording the child's body temperature, symptoms, and medicine intake. Follow-ups were made by the researchers on day four, they ate, and a 15, in each case plus or minus one day (van Haselen et al., 2016). The symptoms were assessed with the utilisation of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey -- 21 (WURSS-21).

The results appear to indicate that the addition of Influid was effective, stating that the Influid group requires less symptomatic medication, also stating the symptoms resolved earlier, with this group having a high proportion of the sample being fever three on or after day free, with the severity of the symptoms measured by the WURSS-21 being less (van Haselen et al., 2016). The results were obtained through statistical analysis with a 95% level of confidence interval applied to the statistical testing (van Haselen et al., 2016).

The study was interesting, and does have some strength. The size of the sample; 261 should provide a sufficient sample size to facilitate the ability to draw generalised conclusions from the research process (Dancey & Reidy, 2006). Furthermore, there appears to be an approach which facilitates an examination of treatment with or without the tested substance, allowing for a comparison to be undertaken. However, while the scientific approach does appear to be utilised, there are a number of factors which may undermine the robustness of the research. The problems arise with the research methodology. The first consideration is the method, where data was gathered from parents making observations, which could be subjective rather than objective, as it deals with the parents perceived severity of the symptoms (In Scientio Veritas, 2016). Furthermore, with an additional subsidy provided, there may have been an impact on the psychological bias of the parents, which skewed the results (In Scientio Veritas, 2016). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that scientific design of this nature, with one group having one treatment, another group having an additional treatment are prone to false positive results (Ernst, 2016). However, perhaps the biggest weakness is in the conflict of interest which was declared by the authors, in which the lead author, and a number of other contributors declared they received a consultancy free from the Deutsche Homoopathie-Union, one author is an employee of the union, and another is a member of the advisory board to that union, which creates the potential for a significant bias in the results (Ernst, 2016).