BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to conventional treatment in acute respiratory and ear complaints in a primary care setting.

METHODS:The study was designed as an international, multi-centre, comparative cohort study of non-randomised design. Patients, presenting themselves with at least one chief complaint: acute (

RESULTS:Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment. The majority of patients in both groups reported their outcome after 14 days of treatment as complete recovery or major improvement (H: 86.9%; C: 86.0%; p = 0.0003 for non-inferiority testing). In the per-protocol set (H: 576 and C: 540 patients) similar results were obtained (H: 87.7%; C: 86.9%; p = 0.0019). Further subgroup analysis of the full analysis set showed no differences of response rates after 14 days in children (H: 88.5%; C: 84.5%) and adults (H: 85.6%; C: 86.6%). The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of the primary outcome criterion was 1.40 (0.89-2.22) in children and 0.92 (0.63-1.34) in adults. Adjustments for demographic differences at baseline did not significantly alter the OR. The response rates after 7 and 28 days also showed no significant differences between both treatment groups. However, onset of improvement within the first 7 days after treatment was significantly faster upon homeopathic treatment both in children (p = 0.0488) and adults (p = 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions occurred more frequently in adults of the conventional group than in the homeopathic group (C: 7.6%; H: 3.1%, p = 0.0032), whereas in children the occurrence of adverse drug reactions was not significantly different (H: 2.0%; C: 2.4%, p = 0.7838).

CONCLUSION:In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.

OBJECTIVE:The widespread use of antibiotics for treatment of acute otitis media (AOM) has resulted in the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens that are difficult to treat. However, it has been shown that most children with nonsevere AOM recover without ABX. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, acceptability, and costs of a non-ABX intervention for children with nonsevere AOM.

METHODOLOGY:Children 6 months to 12 years old with AOM were screened by using a novel AOM-severity screening index. Parents of children with nonsevere AOM received an educational intervention, and their children were randomized to receive either immediate antibiotics (ABX; amoxicillin plus symptom medication) or watchful waiting (WW; symptom medication only). The investigators, but not the parents, were blinded to enrollment status. Primary outcomes included parent satisfaction with AOM care, resolution of symptoms, AOM failure/recurrence, and nasopharyngeal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae strains resistant to ABX. Secondary outcomes included medication-related adverse events, serious adverse events, unanticipated AOM-related office and emergency department visits and telephone calls, the child's absence from day care or school resulting from AOM, the parent's absence from school or work because of their child's AOM, and costs of treatment. Subjects were defined as failing (days 0-12) or recurring (days 13-30) if they experienced a higher AOM-severity score on reexamination.

RESULTS:A total of 223 subjects were recruited: 73% were nonwhite, 57% were<2 years old, 47% attended day care, 82% had experienced prior AOM, and 83% had not been fully immunized with heptavalent pneumococcal vaccine. One hundred twelve were randomized to ABX, and 111 were randomized to WW. Ninety-four percent of the subjects were followed to the 30-day end point. Parent satisfaction with AOM care was not different between the 2 treatment groups at either day 12 or 30. Compared with WW, symptom scores on days 1 to 10 resolved faster in subjects treated with immediate ABX. At day 12, among the immediate-ABX group, 69% of tympanic membranes and 25% of tympanograms were normal, compared with 51% of normal tympanic membranes and 10% of normal tympanograms in the WW group. Parents of children in the ABX group gave their children fewer doses of pain medication than did parents of children in the WW group. Subjects in the ABX group experienced 16% fewer failures than subjects in the WW group. Of the children in the WW group, 66% completed the study without needing ABX. Immediate ABX resulted in eradication of S pneumoniae carriage in the majority of children, but S pneumoniae strains cultured from children in the ABX group at day 12 were more likely to be multidrug-resistant than strains from children in the WW group. More ABX-related adverse events were noted in the ABX group, compared with the WW group. No serious AOM-related adverse events were observed in either group. Office and emergency department visits, phone calls, and days of work/school missed were not different between groups. Prescriptions for ABX were reduced by 73% in the WW group compared with the ABX group. Costs of ABX averaged $47.41 per subject in the ABX group and $11.43 in the WW group.

CONCLUSIONS:Sixty-six percent of subjects in the WW group completed the study without ABX. Parent satisfaction was the same between groups regardless of treatment. Compared with WW, immediate ABX treatment was associated with decreased numbers of treatment failures and improved symptom control but increased ABX-related adverse events and a higher percent carriage of multidrug-resistant S pneumoniae strains in the nasopharynx at the day-12 visit. Key factors in implementing a WW strategy were (a) a method to classify AOM severity; (b) parent education; (c) management of AOM symptoms; (d) access to follow-up care; and (e) use of an effective ABX regimen, when needed. When these caveats are observed, WW may be an acceptable alternative to immediate ABX for some children with nonsevere AOM.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several studies suggest yoga may be effective for chronic low back pain; however, trials targeting minorities have not been conducted. PRIMARY STUDY OBJECTIVES: Assess the feasibility of studying yoga in a predominantly minority population with chronic low back pain. Collect preliminary data to plan a larger powered study. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two community health centers in a racially diverse neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty English-speaking adults (mean age 44 years, 83% female, 83% racial/ethnic minorities; 48% with incomes