Skip to main content
SleepCited

Effectiveness of Homoeopathic Treatments for Sleep Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review According to the Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine.

Kanchan Upreti, Michael Frass
Review Children (Basel, Switzerland) 2025
PubMed DOI PDF
<\/script>\n
`; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = 'sleepcited.com'; const params = 'pmid\u003D41597053'; return ``; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Style



      
      
    

Widget powered by . Free, no account required.

Study Design

Studientyp
systematic review
Stichprobengröße
451
Intervention
Effectiveness of Homoeopathic Treatments for Sleep Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review According to the Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine. various homoeopathic remedies (complex homoeopathy, Melissa officinalis 12C, individualised homoeopa
Vergleichsgruppe
Placebo
Wirkungsrichtung
Positive
Verzerrungsrisiko
Moderate

Abstract

Background: Sleep disorders are common in childhood and adolescence and can negatively affect cognitive development, mood regulation, behaviour, and quality of life. Parents frequently seek complementary therapies such as homoeopathy, yet the scientific evidence for homoeopathic treatments in paediatric sleep disorders remains uncertain. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of homoeopathic interventions for sleep disorders in children and adolescents according to evidence-based medicine principles. Objectives: To systematically review and evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathic treatments for sleep disorders in children and adolescents, following evidence-based principles. We aimed to summarise current clinical evidence from 2015-2025 on whether homoeopathy improves paediatric insomnia and other sleep-related disorders and to assess the quality of that evidence. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and allied databases were searched for RCTs and observational studies involving participants <18 years with sleep disorders (insomnia, bruxism, and enuresis) treated with homoeopathy. English-language studies were screened manually, and bias was assessed qualitatively. Results: Five studies (four RCTs, one observational; 451 participants) met inclusion criteria: Two RCTs reported complex homoeopathic remedies showing some improvement over glycine or placebo for insomnia symptoms. A crossover RCT reported nearly significant bruxism improvement with Melissa officinalis 12C versus placebo (Visual Analogic Scale 0-10; ΔVAS -2.36 vs. -1.72, p = 0.05) and significant VAS improvement in comparison to Phytolacca (p = 0.018). A double-blind RCT in enuretic children showed individualised homoeopathy reduced weekly bedwetting episodes (median -2.4 nights, p < 0.04). One observational study also noted symptom improvement of nocturnal enuresis. No serious adverse effects were reported. Bias risk varied: one open-label trial showed high risk; others were adequately blinded. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests preliminary signals that homoeopathy may have modest benefits for paediatric insomnia, bruxism, and enuresis, with an acceptable safety profile. However, the number and quality of studies are limited, and findings should be interpreted cautiously. Larger, high-quality trials are needed to clarify the potential role of homoeopathic interventions in paediatric sleep disorders. Current epistemological advances in study planning and medical student training should be taken into account: critical and intersectional (or better still, transdisciplinary) thinking with retrospective examination of heuristic initial theses, gender aspects, life course health, context variables and criteria for individualised, patient-related precision medicine.

Full Text

PDF
Loading PDF...

Figures

Tables

Table 3

Author(s) (Year)Domain AssessedBias AssessmentMethod (Narrative)Judgement/Concerns
Jong et al. (2016) [1] Blinding (Performance/Detection) Evaluated as an open-label design; the outcome (symptom score) was rated by investigators/parents aware of the treatment High risk—lack of blinding could inflate perceived improvements in the homoeopathy arm (observer expectancy bias).
Tavares-Silva et al. (2019) [28] Selection Bias (Randomisation) Reviewed the randomisation procedure in the triple-blind RCT; assignment was random and crossover counterbalanced (each child as their own control) Low risk—proper random sequence and allocation; crossover design with each child receiving all treatments reduces between-group differences.
Tavares-Silva et al. (2019) [28]Carryover Effect (Crossover) Analysed washout adequacy (15 days) and period effect; no significant period/order effects reported by authors Some concerns—a 15-day washout may not fully prevent carryover, but it is unlikely to be a major issue given that homoeopathic 12C likely has a transient effect; overall design is robust.
Akram et al. (2025) [29] Performance/Detection Bias Double-blind RCT: patients, prescribers, and evaluators blinded; outcomes (bedwetting frequency) objectively counted by parents, likely unbiased by group Low risk—blinding was maintained; the placebo was identical to the verum, minimising expectation bias. (Slight risk if parents guessed treatment due to improvement, but unlikely).
Akram et al. (2025) [29] Attrition Bias Monitored dropouts (only 4 total dropouts, evenly split); used intention-to-treat analysis for primary outcome Low risk—minimal attrition and no differential loss between groups; results robust.
Saha et al. (2018) [30] Confounding (Study Design) Observational one-group pre-post; no control for placebo effect or maturation; baseline to outcome comparison only High risk—improvement could partly reflect spontaneous resolution or parent perception changes; positive results must be interpreted cautiously without a control group.
All studies (general) Reporting Bias Checked outcomes vs. methods for each study; all predefined outcomes reported, no selective omission noted (e.g., no significant diaries in Tavares’s study were acknowledged) Low risk—no evident selective reporting. Publication bias in the field is possible (negative trials may be unpublished), but within the included studies, reporting was transparent.

References

  1. Untitled
  2. Untitled
  3. Untitled
  4. Untitled
  5. Untitled
  6. Untitled
  7. Untitled
  8. Untitled
  9. Untitled
  10. Untitled
  11. Untitled
  12. Untitled
  13. Untitled
  14. Untitled
  15. Untitled
  16. Untitled
  17. Untitled
  18. Untitled
  19. Untitled
  20. Untitled
  21. Untitled
  22. Untitled
  23. Untitled
  24. Untitled
  25. Untitled
  26. Untitled
  27. Untitled
  28. Untitled
  29. Untitled
  30. Untitled
  31. Untitled
  32. Untitled
  33. Untitled
  34. Untitled
  35. Untitled
  36. Untitled
  37. Untitled
  38. Untitled
  39. Untitled
  40. Untitled
  41. Untitled
  42. Untitled
  43. Untitled
  44. Untitled
  45. Untitled
  46. Untitled
  47. Untitled
  48. Untitled
  49. Untitled
  50. Untitled
  51. Untitled
  52. Untitled
  53. Untitled
  54. Untitled
  55. Untitled
  56. Untitled
  57. Untitled
  58. Untitled
  59. Untitled
  60. Untitled
  61. Untitled
  62. Untitled
  63. Untitled
  64. Untitled
  65. Untitled
  66. Untitled

Used In Evidence Reviews

Similar Papers