Audiovisual and printed technology to prevent childhood diarrhea: A clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuella Silva Joventino Melo ◽  
Brena Shellem Bessa Oliveira ◽  
Francisca Mayra de Sousa Melo ◽  
Maria Jocelane Nascimento Silva ◽  
Rhaiany Kelly Lopes Oliveira ◽  
...  
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 778-779
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs ◽  
L. Margarita Jimenez ◽  
Stephen S. Gloyd ◽  
James L. Gale ◽  
Dean Crothers

We are writing in response to the special article by Sampson and London critiquing our May 1994 publication, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua." We are pleased that Pediatrics provided an opportunity for further debate on this topic. However, we were surprised by the general tone and the number of statistical mis-statements and incorrect inferences in this critique. Because space has been limited in this rebuttal, we would like to limit our comments to a few key points: 1) misrepresentation of our claims, 2) methodological issues, and 3) the importance of open scientific discourse.


2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs ◽  
L. Margarita Jiménez ◽  
Stephen Malthouse ◽  
Elizabeth Chapman ◽  
Dean Crothers ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Alarcon ◽  
Ramon Montoya ◽  
Fernando Perez ◽  
Juan W. Dongo ◽  
Janet M. Peerson ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e94436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Feikin ◽  
Godfrey Bigogo ◽  
Allan Audi ◽  
Sherri L. Pals ◽  
George Aol ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 777-777
Author(s):  
Michael A. Milburn

I am writing concerning Sampson and London's article, "Analysis of Homeopathic Treatment of Childhood Diarrhea" (Pediatrics November 1995) that critically reviewed the article by jacobs et al, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua" (Pediatrics May 1994). The primary problem with the criticisms that Sampson and London raise is that they have not thought through the implications of their arguments. Thus, plausible sounding objections that they offer often lead, upon careful scrutiny, to the opposite conclusion that the authors proclaim.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs ◽  
Stephen S. Gloyd ◽  
James L. Gale ◽  
L. Margarita Jiménez ◽  
Dean Crothers

Objective. Acute diarrhea is the leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. Oral rehydration treatment can prevent death from dehydration, but does not reduce the duration of individual episodes. Homeopathic treatment for acute diarrhea is used in many parts of the world. This study was performed to determine whether homeopathy is useful in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. Methodology. A randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic medicine with placebo in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea was conducted in León, Nicaragua, in July 1991. Eighty-one children aged 6 months to 5 years of age were included in the study. An individualized homeopathic medicine was prescribed for each child and daily follow-up was performed for 5 days. Standard treatment with oral rehydration treatment was also given. Results. The treatment group had a statistically significant (P < .05) decrease in duration of diarrhea, defined as the number of days until there were less than three unformed stools daily for 2 consecutive days. There was also a significant difference (P < .05) in the number of stools per day between the two groups after 72 hours of treatment. Conclusions. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 776-776
Author(s):  
Peter Fisher ◽  
Flavio Dantas ◽  
David Reilly

Sampson and London's critique1 of Jacobs et al's2 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea in Nicaragua misrepresents the scientific evidence. Sampson and London place great emphasis on possible contamination of the homeopathic medicines, citing three references. Of these three references, two do not, in fact, involve contamination or adulteration. The first (which is incorrectly quoted) reports a case of pancreatitis that followed a proprietary homeopathic preparation, but no contamination was demonstrated and no causal relationship proved.3


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document